SynthesisAnnals of global health2019
Diagnostic Accuracy of FOBT and Colorectal Cancer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of global health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- A scoping review of DNA methylation biomarkers for non-invasive detection of colorectal cancer at the CpG site level.Clinical epigenetics · 2026Article
- Economic Evaluation of Fecal Occult Blood Test and Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Indonesia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2026Article
- A preliminary assessment of a stool-based microRNA profile for early colorectal cancer screening.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Fecal bacterial biomarkers and blood biochemical indicators as potential key factors in the development of colorectal cancer.mSystems · 2025Article
- Circulating MiR-126 as a potential biomarker in Egyptian colorectal cancer patients: A case-control study.Innate immunity · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of a Blood-Based Biomarker Panel for Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Pilot Study.Cancers · 2024Article
- Revisiting the diagnostic performance of exosomes: harnessing the feasibility of combinatorial exosomal miRNA profiles for colorectal cancer diagnosis.Discover oncology · 2024Article
- Review
- Assessment of salivary miRNA, clinical, and demographic characterization in colorectal cancer diagnosis.Translational oncology · 2024Article
- Detecting colorectal cancer using genetic and epigenetic biomarkers: screening and diagnosis.Journal of medicine and life · 2024Review
- Review
- The stoolTranslational cancer research · 2023Article
- Salivary and fecal microbiota: potential new biomarkers for early screening of colorectal polyps.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- A role for serum cytokines and cell adhesion molecules in the non-invasive diagnosis of colorectal cancer.Oncology letters · 2022Article
- Dysbiosis of human gut microbiome in young-onset colorectal cancer.Nature communications · 2021Observational
- Genetic Testing for Cancer Risk: Is the Community Willing to Pay for It?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Genetic Testing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Article
- A Pilot Study Investigating the Expression Levels of Pluripotency-Associated Genes in Rectal Swab Samples for Colorectal Polyp and Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis.Stem cells international · 2021Article
- The Value of Multi-targeted Fecal DNA Methylation Detection for Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Chinese Population.Journal of Cancer · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionColorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer related death in the world after lung cancer. Early detection of CRC leads to improvement in cancer survival rate. In recent years, efforts have been made to discover a non-invasive screening marker of higher sensitivity and specificity. Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and genetic testing become alternative modalities to screen CRC in the population other than colonoscopy. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of FOBT and genetic testing as screening tools in colorectal cancer.
methodsA literature search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus was carried out. The search strategy was restricted to human subjects and studies are published in English. Data on sensitivity and specificity were extracted and pooled. Heterogeneity was assumed at significance level of p < 0.10 and was tested by chi squared. Degree of heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic, and values of less than 25% is considered as homogenous. All analyses were performed using the software Meta-Disc.
resultsA total of eleven studies were suitable for data synthesis and analysis. Five studies were analyzed for the accuracy of genetic testing, the pooled estimate for sensitivity and specificity were 71% (95% CI: 66, 75%) and 95% (95% CI: 93, 97%) respectively. Another group of studies which had been evaluated for the accuracy of FOBT, the pooled sensitivity was 31% (95% CI: 25, 38%) while the pooled specificity was 87% (95% CI: 86, 89%).
conclusionsFOBTs is recommended to use as population-based screening tools for colorectal cancer while genetic testing should be focusing on patients with moderate and high risk individuals.
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.