Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28628706›Full record

SynthesisJAMA internal medicine2017

Diagnostic Accuracy of Fecal Immunochemical Test in Patients at Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis.

Anastasia Katsoula, Paschalis Paschos, Anna-Bettina Haidich, Apostolos Tsapas, Olga Giouleme

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07740122 (FECAL-AI), which is not on this map. Cited by 57 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07740122 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

FECAL-AI: Prospective Observational Validation of AI-Based Stool Image Analysis Against Quantitative Fecal Immunochemical Testing for Colorectal Neoplasia Risk Assessment

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorServicio de Salud Metropolitano Sur OrienteRan2026 to 2026Enrolled250ConditionsColorectal NeoplasmsArmsAI-Based Stool Image Analysis
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Diagnostic accuracy of fecal calprotectin for screening patients with colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2018
    Pooled it
  10. Diagnostic Performance of IntestinalChinese medical journal · 2018
    Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Observational
  14. Diagnostic performance of LINE-1 repetitive elements in stool DNA for non-invasive detection of colorectal cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Anastasia KatsoulaSecond Propedeutic Medical Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Paschalis PaschosSecond Propedeutic Medical Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Anna-Bettina HaidichDepartment of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Medical School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Apostolos TsapasClinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine Unit, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Olga GioulemeSecond Propedeutic Medical Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The potential role of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for screening patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) has not yet been elucidated. Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of FIT for CRC or advanced neoplasia (AN) in asymptomatic patients at above-average risk. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and gray literature sources through August 2016. Study Selection: Diagnostic studies evaluating the accuracy of FIT for CRC or AN in patients with a personal or familial history of CRC using colonoscopy as the reference standard. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two authors (A.K. and P.P.) independently extracted data and evaluated study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool, and evaluated the quality of the body of evidence by means of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Hierarchical models were used to synthesize available evidence. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the diagnostic performance of FIT for detecting CRC or AN. Results: We included 12 studies (6204 participants). Seven studies were deemed at high or unclear risk of bias. The average sensitivity of FIT for CRC was 93% (95% CI, 53%-99%), and the average specificity was 91% (95% CI, 89%-92%), yielding a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 10.30 (CI 7.7-13.9) and a negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.08 (95% CI, 0.01-0.75) (GRADE: very low). The average sensitivity of FIT for AN was 48% (95% CI, 39%-57%); and the average specificity was 93% (95% CI, 91%-94%), yielding an LR+ of 6.55 (95% CI, 5.0-8.5) and an LR- of 0.57 (95% CI, 0.48-0.67) (GRADE: very low). Subgroup analyses indicated that FIT cutoff values between 15- and 25-μg/g feces provided the best combination of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of CRC (93% and 94%, respectively). Quantitative and 1-sample FIT showed adequate test performance, but data on other FIT brands and multiple samples were insufficient. Conclusions and Relevance: The FIT has high overall diagnostic accuracy for CRC but moderate accuracy for AN in patients at above-average personal or familial risk. Heterogeneity and wide confidence intervals limit the trustworthiness of our findings.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFecesDimensional Measurement AccuracyHumansImmunochemistryNeoplasm StagingRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID28628706
PMCPMC5710432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.