ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports2017
Stool Based Testing for Colorectal Cancer: an Overview of Available Evidence.
Review in Current gastroenterology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A risk scoring system to predict the individual incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer.BMC cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Colorectal Cancer: Risk Factors, Novel Approaches in Molecular Screening and Treatment.International journal of molecular and cellular medicine · 2025Review
- Performance of different colorectal cancer screening strategies: a long-term passive follow-up population-based screening program in Beijing, China.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Novel Diagnostic Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Tracking the Antibody Immunome in Sporadic Colorectal Cancer by Using Antigen Self-Assembled Protein Arrays.Cancers · 2021Article
- Consensus statement of the Italian society of colorectal surgery (SICCR): management and treatment of hemorrhoidal disease.Techniques in coloproctology · 2020Review
- Tumor-derived exosomes: Potential biomarkers and therapeutic target in the treatment of colorectal cancer.Journal of cellular physiology · 2019Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe goal of this review is to summarize stool-based testing for colorectal cancer (CRC). The key questions answered in this review were the advantages and limitations of each available stool-based test for CRC and to examine their comparative efficacy. RECENT
findingsGuaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) is no longer a relevant test for CRC screening. fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) tests, especially quantitative assays, are clearly a reliable stool-based test. Multitarget DNA (mtsDNA) stool testing may represent a viable option as well, although cost and test characteristics are yet fully defined. FIT and mtsDNA represent the options for stool-based CRC screening. In larger screening centers, quantitative FIT assays represent an attractive option for stool-based testing. Qualitative FIT has applicability in smaller centers. Although a large validation trial showed promising results for mtsDNA, further head-to-head trials with FIT will help define the ultimate role of mtsDNA. Ultimately, however, the best test for CRC screening is the one performed stool-based CRC screening as an initial or alternative option can increase participation in CRC screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28730505What 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.