ArticleBJGP open2020
Public preferences for using quantitative faecal immunochemical test versus colonoscopy as diagnostic test for colorectal cancer: evidence from an online survey.
Article in BJGP open, 2020. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Preferences for multi-cancer tests (MCTs) in primary care: discrete choice experiments of general practitioners and the general public in England.British journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Article
- Colon lesions in elderly individuals with positive and negative fecal immunochemical test results among PERSIAN Guilan cohort study (PGCS) population.Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2025Article
- Patient and healthcare professionals' perceptions of a combined blood and faecal immunochemical test for excluding colorectal cancer diagnosis in primary care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Article
- Double faecal immunochemical testing in patients with symptoms suspicious of colorectal cancer.The British journal of surgery · 2023Article
- Accuracy of a faecal immunochemical test in patients under colonoscopy surveillance of colorectal adenoma and cancer.Upsala journal of medical sciences · 2023Article
- Diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer of a quantitative faecal immunochemical test in symptomatic primary care patients: a study protocol.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2022Article
- Article
- Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) versus colonoscopy: Does knowing that a positive FIT requires a follow-up colonoscopy affect initial decision making in the US?Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Faecal immunochemical test for suspected colorectal cancer symptoms: patient survey of usability and acceptability.BJGP open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere has been interest in using the non-invasive, home-based quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in high-risk symptomatic patients.
aimTo elicit public preferences for FIT versus colonoscopy (CC) and its delivery in primary care. DESIGN &
settingA cross-sectional online survey in England.
methodA total of 1057 adults (without CRC symptoms and diagnosis) aged 40-59 years were invited from an English online survey panel. Responders were asked to imagine they had been experiencing CRC symptoms that would qualify them for a diagnostic test. Participants were presented with choices between CC and FIT in ascending order of number of CRCs missed by FIT (from 1-10%). It was measured at what number of missed CRCs responders preferred CC over FIT.
resultsWhile 150 participants did not want either of the tests when both missed 1% CRCs, the majority (
conclusionWhile the majority of participants preferred FIT over CC when both tests had the same sensitivity, tolerance for missed CRCs was low.
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.