ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2017
Comparative Evaluation of Preliminary Screening Methods for Colorectal Cancer in a Mass Program.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Performance of IntestinalChinese medical journal · 2018Pooled it
- The performance of FIT-based colorectal cancer screening: results from a population-based program.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Fecal immunochemical test surveillance in colorectal cancer following adenoma resection: A longitudinal, population-based linked cohort study in China.PLoS medicine · 2025Article
- tRF-59:76-Arg-ACG-1-M2 is upregulated during colorectal carcinogenesis and promotes cell proliferation, migration, and invasion.Clinical and translational medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Developing an optimal stratification model for colorectal cancer screening and reducing racial disparities in multi-center population-based studies.Genome medicine · 2024Article
- Efficient organized colorectal cancer screening in Shenzhen: a microsimulation modelling study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- A qualitative interview study on colorectal cancer screening in China.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Real-world application of a fast stool DNA test for colorectal cancer screening in primary screening positive population.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Factors associated with adherence to colonoscopy among individuals who were positive in the preliminary screening for colorectal neoplasms.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- Hypermethylation of tumor suppressor lncRNA MEF2C-AS1 frequently happened in patients at all stages of colorectal carcinogenesis.Clinical epigenetics · 2022Article
- Improved risk scoring systems for colorectal cancer screening in Shanghai, China.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- Colorectal Cancer Screening in China: Status, Challenges, and Prospects - China, 2022.China CDC weekly · 2022Article
- Article
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Modalities in Chinese Population: Practice and Lessons in Pudong New Area of Shanghai, China.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe fecal immunochemical test (FIT) has been widely used in preliminary screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). The high-risk factor questionnaire (HRFQ) and quantitative risk-assessment method (QRAM) are recommended for estimating the risk of CRC qualitatively and quantitatively in China.
aimWe aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic values of CRC preliminary screening methods to identify which method is preferable as a screening strategy.
methodsIndividuals aged 40-74 years old were enrolled in a mass CRC screening program from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2014, in Jiashan County, Zhejiang Province, China. FIT of two stool specimens at 1-week intervals was performed by laboratory personnel and face-to-face interviews were conducted by trained investigators. Screening data in the program were linked to a CRC surveillance and registry system, and CRC cases reported in the system were regarded as true patients.
resultsA total of 96,043 subjects were included. The sensitivity and specificity of FIT for detecting CRC cases were 75.49% (95% CI 69.84-80.39) and 90.36% (95% CI 90.17-90.54), respectively. QRAM was more sensitive (p < 0.001) and less specific (p < 0.001) than HRFQ. The sensitivity and specificity of FIT along with HRFQ were 86.56% (95% CI 81.81-90.22) and 81.37% (95% CI 81.12-81.62), and those of FIT along with QRAM were 88.93% (95% CI 84.47-92.23) and 73.95% (95% CI 73.67-74.23).
conclusionsOur findings suggest that CRC preliminary screening with FIT and QRAM in parallel has high sensitivity and satisfactory specificity, and is a useful strategy in mass screening programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28634645What OpenQuestion holds
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.