Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29720130›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2018

Performance of a quantitative fecal immunochemical test for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia: a prospective cohort study.

Elizabeth G Liles, Nancy Perrin, Ana G Rosales, David H Smith, Adrianne C Feldstein, David M Mosen, Theodore R Levin

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Elizabeth G LilesKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR, 97227, USA. Beth.G.Liles@kpchr.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9669-9252
Nancy PerrinJohns Hopkins School of Nursing, 525 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Ana G RosalesKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR, 97227, USA.
David H SmithKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR, 97227, USA.
Adrianne C FeldsteinKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR, 97227, USA.
David M MosenKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR, 97227, USA.
Theodore R LevinKaiser Permanente Medical Center, 1425 S. Main Street, Walnut Creek, CA, 94596, USA.
Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research · USJohns Hopkins University · USKaiser Permanente Walnut Creek Medical Center · US

Funding

Maximizing yield of the fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer screeningR01CA154982 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI LILES, ELIZABETH GRACE · 2011 to 2014
$2.3M
National Cancer Institute R01CA154982-04NCI NIH HHS R01 CA154982
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is easier to use and more sensitive than the guaiac fecal occult blood test, but it is unclear how to optimize FIT performance. We compared the sensitivity and specificity for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia between single-sample (1-FIT) and two-sample (2-FIT) FIT protocols at a range of hemoglobin concentration cutoffs for a positive test.

methodsWe recruited 2,761 average-risk men and women ages 49-75 referred for colonoscopy within a large nonprofit, group-model health maintenance organization (HMO), and asked them to complete two separate single-sample FITs. We generated receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves to compare sensitivity and specificity estimates for 1-FIT and 2-FIT protocols among those who completed both FIT kits and colonoscopy. We similarly compared sensitivity and specificity between hemoglobin concentration cutoffs for a single-sample FIT.

resultsDifferences in sensitivity and specificity between the 1-FIT and 2-FIT protocols were not statistically significant at any of the pre-specified hemoglobin concentration cutoffs (10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 μg/g). There was a significant difference in test performance of the one-sample FIT between 50 ng/ml (10 μg/g) and each of the higher pre-specified cutoffs. Disease prevalence was low.

conclusionsA two-sample FIT is not superior to a one-sample FIT in detection of advanced adenomas; the one-sample FIT at a hemoglobin concentration cutoff of 50 ng/ml (10 μg/g) is significantly more sensitive for advanced adenomas than at higher cutoffs. These findings apply to a population of younger, average-risk patients in a U.S. integrated care system with high rates of prior screening.

Indexed as

Occult BloodAgedArea Under CurveCohort StudiesColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHemoglobinsHumansImmunohistochemistryMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedProspective StudiesROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityHemoglobinsColorectal neoplasmsMass screeningOccult bloodSensitivity and specificity

Identifiers

PMID29720130
PMCPMC5932873
OpenAlexW2800521738

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.