ReviewClinical epidemiology2019
Diagnostic Accuracy Of Fecal Occult Blood Tests For Detecting Proximal Versus Distal Colorectal Neoplasia: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis.
Review in Clinical epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Comparison of faecal protein biomarkers' diagnostic accuracy for colorectal advanced neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2022Pooled it
- Colorectal cancer screening and incidence and mortality of colorectal and other cancers in the United Kingdom.Journal of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Head-to-head comparison of fecal occult blood tests for colorectal neoplasia detection in Chinese outpatients: a multicenter diagnostic trial.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Metabolomic analysis reveals key changes in amino acid metabolism in colorectal cancer patients.Amino acids · 2025Article
- Re-evaluating population-level screening recommendations to address increasing early-onset colorectal cancer rates in Australia: a modelling study.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Accuracy of Faecal Matrix-Metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) for Colorectal Cancer Detection in Makassar, Indonesia.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Article
- Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening and Risk of Colorectal Cancer Death.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening integrating non-genetic and genetic risk: a prospective study based on UK Biobank data.Cancer biology & medicine · 2024Article
- Interval cancer after two rounds of a Swedish population-based screening program using gender-specific cut-off levels in fecal immunochemical test.Journal of medical screening · 2024Article
- Interval cancers in a population-based screening program for colorectal cancer with gender-specific cut-off levels for fecal immunochemical test.Journal of medical screening · 2022Article
- Review
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
objectiveWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the differences of diagnostic performance of fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) in detecting advanced colorectal neoplasms located in the proximal versus distal colorectum.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for eligible articles published before August 17, 2018. Two independent reviewers conducted study assessment and data extraction. Diagnosis-related indicators of FOBT for detecting proximal and distal colorectal neoplasms were summarized, and further stratified by the type of FOBT (guaiac-based FOBT (gFOBT) and immunochemical FOBT (iFOBT)). Pooled sensitivities and specificities were calculated using a random effect model. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted and area under the curves were calculated.
resultsOverall, 31 studies meeting the inclusion criteria were included in this review. For gFOBT, we found no site-specific difference (proximally vs distally located) of pooled sensitivities observed in the colorectal cancer (CRC), advanced adenomas, and advanced neoplasms groups. As for iFOBT, pooled sensitivities for detecting CRC located in the distal colon/rectum were comparable with that in the proximal colon (proximal vs distal, 0.67, 95% CI 0.62-0.72 vs 0.72, 95% CI 0.68-0.75), while higher pooled sensitivities for detecting advanced adenomas and advanced neoplasms located in the distal colon/rectum than for detecting those in the proximal colon were observed for iFOBT with the values of 0.24 (95% CI 0.22-0.25) vs 0.32 (95% CI 0.30-0.34) and 0.25 (95% CI 0.23-0.28) vs 0.38 (95% CI 0.36-0.40), respectively. Summary receiver operating characteristic curve analyses showed similar patterns for both types of FOBT regarding the diagnostic accuracy for detecting colorectal neoplasms according to the anatomical sites of the colorectum.
conclusioniFOBT had higher sensitivity for detecting advanced adenomas and advanced neoplasia located in the distal colon/rectum than that for those in the proximal colon.
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.