ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2017
Faecal immunochemical tests for the diagnosis of symptomatic colorectal cancer in primary care: the benefit of more than one sample.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Faecal immunochemical test for patients with 'high-risk' bowel symptoms: a large prospective cohort study and updated literature review.British journal of cancer · 2022Observational
- Risk of missing colorectal cancer with a COVID-adapted diagnostic pathway using quantitative faecal immunochemical testing.BJS open · 2021Article
- Diagnosing colorectal cancer in primary care: cohort study in Sweden of qualitative faecal immunochemical tests, haemoglobin levels, and platelet counts.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020Article
- Article
- Prediction of advanced colonic neoplasm in symptomatic patients: a scoring system to prioritize colonoscopy (COLONOFIT study).BMC cancer · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFaecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are used to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC) and as diagnostic aids in symptomatic patients. However, the number of samples per FIT varies. It is unclear if there is any advantage to analyse multiple-sample FITs in symptomatic patients. DESIGN AND
settingThis is a post hoc analysis of a retrospective study that included all cases of CRC and adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) between 2005 and 2009 in the county of Jämtland, Sweden. SUBJECTS: All patients with CRC and adenomas with HGD that initially presented with symptoms to primary care and delivered FITs.
main outcome measureThe likelihood of a positive FIT in cases of CRC and adenomas with HGD; when analysing one, two or three samples.
resultsOf 195 patients, 160 delivered three-sample FITs. Using the 139 cases in which at least one sample was positive, the likelihood of detecting a positive sample upon analysis of only one of the three samples was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85-0.95), indicating that 13 positive cases may have been missed.
conclusionUse of a one-sample FIT instead of a three-sample FIT as a diagnostic aid may result in the missing of one tenth of symptomatic CRCs and adenomas with HGD.
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.