ArticleClinical epidemiology2017
Fecal occult blood versus DNA testing: indirect comparison in a colorectal cancer screening population.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stool DNA testing for early detection of colorectal cancer: systematic review using the HTA Core ModelGerman medical science : GMS e-journal · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Risk factors associated with false-positive fecal immunochemical test results in colorectal cancer screening.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- 2021 Clinical Practice Guidelines on Periodic Health Examination.Acta medica Philippina · 2026Article
- Microbiome Analysis of More Than 2,000 NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Samples Shows the Potential to Improve Screening Accuracy.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2021Article
- Role of gut microbiota in epigenetic regulation of colorectal Cancer.Biochimica et biophysica acta. Reviews on cancer · 2021Review
- Global burden of colorectal cancer: emerging trends, risk factors and prevention strategies.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2019Review
- The colorectal cancer epidemic: challenges and opportunities for primary, secondary and tertiary prevention.British journal of cancer · 2018Review
- Gene mutations in stool from gastric and colorectal neoplasia patients by next-generation sequencing.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Article
- Comment on "Fecal occult blood versus DNA testing: indirect comparison in a colorectal cancer screening population".Clinical epidemiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA multitarget stool DNA test (MSDT) that showed higher sensitivity but lower specificity than a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for hemoglobin in one recent study from the US and Canada, is increasingly used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, despite its ~20-fold higher costs compared to FITs. We aimed to assess diagnostic performance of a quantitative FIT in an independent study among participants of screening colonoscopy and to compare it with the previously reported performance of MSDT.
methodsA total of 3494 participants, aged 50-84 years, who underwent screening colonoscopy in private gastroenterological practices in Germany, and who provided a stool sample before colonoscopy to be evaluated by a commercially available quantitative FIT (FOB Gold
resultsThe most advanced finding at colonoscopy was CRC and APCL in 30 (0.86%) and 359 (10.3%) cases, respectively. At a cutoff yielding the same specificity as reported for MSDT (86.6%), the sensitivities (95% CI) of the FIT for detecting CRC and APCL >1 cm were 96.7% (82.8-99.9%) and 54.3% (48.3-60.3%), respectively. These sensitivities are higher than those reported for MSDT (92.3% and 43.6%,
conclusionIn this large screening population, FIT showed equivalent or better diagnostic performance in comparison to reported performance of MSDT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.