ArticleBMC gastroenterology2019
Improvement of Asia-Pacific colorectal screening score and evaluation of its use combined with fecal immunochemical test.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Potential of Selected C-X-C Motif Chemokines as Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Article
- Colonoscopy outcomes of primary screening negative participants highlight the missed diagnosis problem of colorectal cancer screening: an observational study from Yuexiu district in Guangzhou, China.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Predicting the risk of colorectal cancer among diabetes patients using a random survival forest-guided approach.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment and Precision Approaches to Screening: Brave New World or Worlds Apart?Gastroenterology · 2023Review
- A Comparison of Single and Combined Schemes of Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening, Faecal Immunochemical and Stool Deoxyribonucleic Acid Testing for Community Colorectal Cancer Screening.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2023Article
- Future of Colorectal Cancer Screening: From One-Size-FITs-All to Tailor-Made.Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Association between the Severity of Sarcopenia and Pneumonia in Patients with Stable Schizophrenia: A Prospective Study.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2022Article
- Association of Ishii test scores with pneumonia in stable schizophrenic subjects.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- The implementation of colorectal cancer screening interventions in low-and middle-income countries: a scoping review.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- Value of Serum NEUROG1 Methylation for the Detection of Advanced Adenomas and Colorectal Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- The Clinical Significance of Colon Polyp Pathology in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) and Its Impact on Screening Colonoscopy in Daily Practice.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening (APCS) score is effective to screen high-risk groups of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) patients but needs revising and can be combined with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). This paper aimed to improve the APCS score and evaluate its use with the FIT in stratifying the risk of ACN.
methodsThis prospective and multicenter study enrolled 955 and 1201 asymptomatic Chinese participants to form the derivation and validation set, respectively. Participants received the risk factor questionnaire, colonoscopy and FIT. Multiple logistic regression was applied, and C-statistic, sensitivity and negative predictive values (NPVs) were used to compare the screening efficiency.
resultsA modified model was developed incorporating age, body mass index (BMI), family history, diabetes, smoking and drinking as risk factors, stratifying subjects into average risk (AR) or high risk (HR). In the validation set, the HR tier group had a 3.4-fold (95% CI 1.8-6.4) increased risk for ACN. The C-statistic for the modified score was 0.69 ± 0.04, and 0.67 ± 0.04 for the original score. The sensitivity of the modified APCS score combined with FIT for screening ACN high-risk cohorts was 76.7% compared with 36.7% of FIT alone and 70.0% of the modified APCS score alone. The NPVs of the modified score combined with FIT for ACN were 98.0% compared with 97.0% of FIT alone and 97.9% of the modified APCS score alone.
conclusionsThe modified score and its use with the FIT are efficient in selecting the HR group from a Chinese asymptomatic population.
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.