ReviewUnited European gastroenterology journal2018
Fecal immunochemical tests in combination with blood tests for colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma detection-systematic review.
Review in United European gastroenterology journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Stage-Specific Sensitivity of Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Detecting Colorectal Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- Global, regional, and national burden of early-onset and late-onset colorectal cancer, 1990-2021: a comparative analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.Future science OA · 2026Article
- Phosphorylated filamin-A at serine 1459 from plasma-derived small extracellular vesicles as a promising biomarker for high-risk adenoma and colorectal cancer.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Utility of Stool-Based Tests for Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Comprehensive Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Review
- Integrating clinical and cross-cohort metagenomic features: a stable and non-invasive colorectal cancer and adenoma diagnostic model.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2023Article
- Clinical performance study of a fecal bacterial signature test for colorectal cancer screening.PloS one · 2023Article
- Methylated Septin9 (mCancer research communications · 2022Article
- The Roadmap of Colorectal Cancer Screening.Cancers · 2021Review
- Triage May Improve Selection to Colonoscopy and Reduce the Number of Unnecessary Colonoscopies.Cancers · 2020Article
- The use of electronic healthcare records for colorectal cancer screening referral decisions and risk prediction model development.BMC gastroenterology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is a common but largely preventable cancer. Although fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) detect the majority of CRCs, they miss some of the cancers and most advanced adenomas (AAs). The potential of blood tests in complementing FITs for the detection of CRC or AA has not yet been systematically investigated.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of performance of FIT combined with an additional blood test for CRC and AA detection versus FIT alone. PubMed and Web of Science were searched until June 9, 2017.
resultsSome markers substantially increased sensitivity for CRC when combined with FIT, albeit typically at a major loss of specificity. For AA, no relevant increase in sensitivity could be achieved.
conclusionCombining FIT and blood tests might be a promising approach to enhance sensitivity of CRC screening, but comprehensive evaluation of promising marker combinations in screening populations is needed.
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.