ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2018
Attitudes towards faecal immunochemical testing in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer: an online survey of GPs in England.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-World Performance of FIT Triage for Symptomatic Colonoscopy: Analysis of the UK National Endoscopy Database (NED).Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2026Article
- Article
- Barriers and facilitators to faecal immunochemical testing in symptomatic populations: A rapid systematic scoping review and gap analysis.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Sociodemographic variations in the uptake of faecal immunochemical tests in primary care: a retrospective study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- The Fast Track FIT study: diagnostic accuracy of faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin in patients with suspected colorectal cancer.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Article
- Primary care clinicians' perceptions of colorectal cancer screening tests for older adults.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- Article
- COVID-19 recovery: tackling the 2-week wait colorectal pathway backlog by optimising CT colonography utilisation.Clinical radiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- The elusive diagnosis of cancer: testing times.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is increasing interest in using a quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with high-risk symptoms in primary care.
aimThis study aimed to investigate GPs' attitudes and willingness to use a FIT over an urgent 2-week wait (2WW) referral. DESIGN AND
settingA cross-sectional online survey involving 1024 GPs working across England.
methodLogistic regression models were used to explore the likelihood of GPs using a FIT instead of a 2WW referral, and reported using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).
resultsJust over one-third of GPs (
conclusionThe study findings suggest that the acceptability of using a FIT as a rule-out test in primary care is currently low, with less than half of GPs who perceived the test to be accurate preferring it over colonoscopy. Any potential guideline changes recommending a FIT in patients with high-risk symptoms, instead of urgent referral to rule out CRC, are likely to require intensive supporting educational outreach to increase GP confidence in the accuracy and application of a FIT in this context.
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.