Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30851476›Full record

ArticleClinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association2019

Effect of Imperfect Compliance With Instructions for Fecal Sample Collection on Diagnostic Performance of 9 Fecal Immunochemical Tests.

Anton Gies, Laura Fiona Gruner, Petra Schrotz-King, Hermann Brenner

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Auto-antibodies to p53 and the Subsequent Development of Colorectal Cancer in a U.S. Prospective Cohort Consortium.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Anton GiesDivision of Preventive Oncology, German Cancer Research Center, and National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany; Medical Faculty Heidelberg, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Laura Fiona GrunerMedical Faculty Heidelberg, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center, and National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany.
Petra Schrotz-KingDivision of Preventive Oncology, German Cancer Research Center, and National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany.
Hermann BrennerDivision of Preventive Oncology, German Cancer Research Center, and National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany; Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center, and National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, German Cancer Research Center, and National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: h.brenner@dkfz.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimsFecal immunochemical tests (FITs) measure hemoglobin in stool to identify individuals at risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, there are many different FITs, with different instructions for fecal sample collection. In routine practice, participants do not always follow these instructions exactly. We assessed the effects of violations of fecal sampling instructions on the diagnostic performance of 9 quantitative FITs.

methodsWe obtained stool samples from 76 patients with CRC scheduled for surgery at 4 hospitals in Germany and 100 participants without advanced neoplasms who participated in a prospective colonoscopy screening program. We filled fecal sample tubes according to the manufacturers' instructions or with 3 violations that are likely to occur in routine practice. The diagnostic performance was assessed for a total of 6336 FIT samples (176 participants × 9 FITs × 4 sampling methods).

resultsSample collection instructions varied widely among FITs but included 3 key components: multiple insertions of the sampling rod into stool, a visual check of rod for complete filling with stool, and once-only insertion of the stool-filled rod into the tube. Violation of the first 2 components (inserting the rod into the stool sample only 1 time or not visually checking the rod for complete filling) reduced levels of hemoglobin measured. However, the effect on diagnostic performance was generally small. Violation of the third component (insertion of more stool into the tube than recommended) increased levels of hemoglobin measured in samples and identified more patients with CRC (increase of median sensitivity by almost 10% units) at a small loss of specificity (decrease of median specificity by 2% units), and produced the highest area under the curve for detection of CRC cases for 6 FITs.

conclusionsViolations of fecal sampling instructions can lead to non-negligible variations in fecal hemoglobin measurements. The limited adverse effects on diagnostic performance indicate the robustness of FITs. The potential for increasing diagnostic performance by collecting more stool material should be followed up in further research.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFecesFemaleHemoglobinsHumansImmunochemistryMaleMiddle AgedOccult BloodSensitivity and SpecificitySpecimen HandlingHemoglobinsColon CancerFecal Occult Blood TestScreening AdherenceStool Collection

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.