ArticleFrontline gastroenterology2019
Experience of adopting faecal immunochemical testing to meet the NICE colorectal cancer referral criteria for low-risk symptomatic primary care patients in Oxfordshire, UK.
Article in Frontline gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Quantitative faecal immunochemical tests to guide colorectal cancer pathway referral in primary care. A systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Faecal immunochemical test to triage patients with abdominal symptoms for suspected colorectal cancer in primary care: review of international use and guidelines.Family practice · 2020Pooled it
- Article
- Triaging colorectal urgent referrals in the COVID-19 era using faecal immunochemical testing: a prospective UK real-world multicentre cohort study.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025Observational
- Faecal immunochemical tests for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer: An updated systematic review and multiple-threshold meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024Review
- FIT negative clinic as a safety net for low-risk patients with colorectal cancer: impact on endoscopy and radiology utilisation-a retrospective cohort study.Frontline gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Plasma protein changes reflect colorectal cancer development and associated inflammation.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Role of the faecal immunochemical test in patients with risk-stratified suspected colorectal cancer symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis to inform the ACPGBI/BSG guidelines.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2022Article
- Article
- Review
- Article
- Faecal immunochemical test for patients with 'high-risk' bowel symptoms: a large prospective cohort study and updated literature review.British journal of cancer · 2022Observational
- Recognising Colorectal Cancer in Primary Care.Advances in therapy · 2021Article
- Faecal immunochemical (rule-in) testing in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic performance of guaiac faecal occult blood (gFOB) testing with faecal immunochemical test (FIT) in a low-risk symptomatic primary care population to provide objective data on which to base local referral guidelines.
designStool samples from routine primary care practice sent for faecal occult blood testing were analysed by a standard gFOB method and the HM-JACKarc FIT between January and March 2016. Symptoms described on the test request were recorded. Patients were followed up over 21 months for evidence of serious gastrointestinal pathology including colorectal adenocarcinoma.
resultsIn 238 patients, the sensitivity and specificity for colorectal adenocarcinoma detection using gFOB were 85.7% and 65.8%, respectively, compared with 85.7% and 89.2% for FIT. The positive predictive value (PPV) for gFOB was 7.1% and negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.3%. Comparatively, the PPV for FIT was 19.4% and NPV 99.5%. The improved performance of FIT over gFOB was due to a lower false positive rate (10.8 vs 34.2, p≤0.01) with no increase in the false negatives rate. For any significant colorectal disease, the PPV for FIT increased to 35.5% with a reduction in NPV to 95.7%.
conclusionIn this low-risk symptomatic patient group, the proportion of samples considered positive by FIT was considerably lower than gFOB with the same rate of colorectal adenocarcinoma detection. One in three of those with positive FIT had a significant colorectal disease. This supports National Institute of Health and Care Excellence recommendation that FIT can be reliably used as a triage test in primary care without overburdening endoscopy resources.
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.