ArticleBMC cancer2018
Higher satisfaction with an alternative collection device for stool sampling in colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical test: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Potential prognostic and predictive value of UBE2N, IMPDH1, DYNC1LI1 and HRASLS2 in colorectal cancer stool specimens.Biomedical reports · 2023Article
- Trends of Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in Korea: Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2005-2020.Gut and liver · 2022Article
- Novel Toilet Paper-Based Point-Of-Care Test for the Rapid Detection of Fecal Occult Blood: Instrument Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying preferences for stool collection devices may help increase uptake rates for colorectal cancer screening via fecal immunochemical test (FIT). This study surveyed satisfaction with different devices utilized to collect stool samples for FIT: a conventional container and a sampling bottle (Eiken OC-Sensor).
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted at the National Cancer Center, Korea. Participants aged 50-74 years who used either a conventional container or a sampling bottle to collect a stool sample for FIT were asked to complete a questionnaire designed to survey their satisfaction with the stool collection process and their intentions to undergo FIT in subsequent screening rounds. In total, 1657 participants (1224 conventional container, 433 sampling bottle) were included for analysis.
resultsSatisfaction with the sampling bottle was higher than that with the conventional container (79.9% vs.73.0%, p = 0.005, respectively; aOR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.16-2.00). Participants satisfied with the sampling bottle were more likely to be female, be of younger age (50-64 years old), have higher household income, and have prior experience with FIT. Intentions to undergo subsequent screening were stronger among those given the sampling bottle than those given the conventional container (aOR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.28-2 .48).
conclusionsSatisfaction with the stool collection process was higher with the sampling bottle. However, additional studies are needed to validate whether the increased satisfaction and stronger intentions to undergo subsequent screening with the sampling bottle could actually lead to increased uptake in subsequent rounds, along with analysis of the device's cost effectiveness.
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.