Trial reportThe American journal of gastroenterology2017
A Comparison of Fecal Immunochemical and High-Sensitivity Guaiac Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening.
Trial report in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 4 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
41 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Effect of Sex, Age, and Positivity Threshold on Fecal Immunochemical Test Accuracy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Gastroenterology · 2019Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of FOBT and Colorectal Cancer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis.Annals of global health · 2019Pooled it
- Fecal Fusobacterium nucleatum for the diagnosis of colorectal tumor: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Centralized Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Head-to-head comparison of fecal occult blood tests for colorectal neoplasia detection in Chinese outpatients: a multicenter diagnostic trial.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- 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
- Investigating stage-specific metabolic alterations in colorectal cancer through urine metabolomics.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2025Article
- Analysis of the effect of fecal SDC2, ADHFE1 and PPP2R5C gene methylation test for screening colorectal cancer in the Otog Front Banner.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Optimal Approach to Colorectal Cancer Screening.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025Article
- Early Detection, Precision Treatment, Recurrence Monitoring: Liquid Biopsy Transforms Colorectal Cancer Therapy.Current cancer drug targets · 2025Review
- Effectiveness of the Korean National Cancer Screening Program in Reducing Colorectal Cancer Mortality.Cancers · 2024Article
- Review
- Screening of colorectal cancer: Methods and strategies.World journal of clinical oncology · 2024Article
- Why is early detection of colon cancer still not possible in 2023?World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Review
- National cancer screening program for colorectal cancer in Korea.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2023Review
- Combined detection of SDC2/ADHFE1/PPP2R5C methylation in stool DNA for colorectal cancer screening.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Reducing disparities and achieving health equity in colorectal cancer screening.Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023Article
- Sessile serrated lesion detection rates continue to increase: 2008-2020.Endoscopy international open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesAnnual testing using either a high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test (HS-gFOBT) or a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is recommended for screening average-risk people for colorectal cancer. We compared the performance characteristics of the HS-gFOBT Hemoccult II SENSA and two FITs (InSure FIT and OC FIT-CHEK) for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia.
methodsThe study included 1,006 asymptomatic patients, aged 50-75 years, who were scheduled to receive a screening colonoscopy at gastroenterology practices in the Minneapolis and Indianapolis metropolitan areas. Each participant was asked to complete all three stool tests before their colonoscopy. Each test's performance characteristics were evaluated using the screening colonoscopic results as the reference standard.
resultsSensitivity for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia was highest for InSure FIT (26.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.9-40.7), followed by OC FIT-CHEK (15.1%, 95% CI 6.7-26.1) and Hemoccult II SENSA (7.4%, 95% CI 1.9-17.0). InSure FIT was statistically significantly more sensitive than both OC FIT-CHEK (absolute difference in sensitivity=11.2%, 95% CI 0.4-24.2) and Hemoccult II SENSA (difference in sensitivity=18.9%, 95% CI 10.2-32.6). Specificities were relatively high for all tests (between 96.8% and 98.6%).
conclusionsOur results suggest that some FITs are more sensitive than the HS-gFOBT Hemoccult II SENSA, but these results need to be confirmed in larger asymptomatic populations. Comparisons between the FITs examined in this study and other FITs are needed to determine the best tests for population screening.
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.