ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports2020
Stool-Based Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Performance Benchmarks Lead to High Expected Efficacy.
Review in Current gastroenterology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fecal Immunochemical Test and Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Real-World Practice: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Epidemiology of Colon Cancer Screening in a Safety-Net Setting.AJPM focus · 2025Article
- Machine Learning-Enabled Non-Invasive Screening of Tumor-Associated Circulating Transcripts for Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Effects of Oral Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Agents on Performance of Multitarget Colorectal Cancer Screening Test.Gastro hep advances · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Modified Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Almaty, Kazakhstan.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023Article
- Article
- Molecular methods for colorectal cancer screening: Progress with next-generation sequencing evolution.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Review
- MicroRNA-based signature for diagnosis and prognosis of colorectal cancer using residuum of fecal immunochemical test.Biomedical journal · 2023Article
- Article
- Clinical presentation, management, screening and surveillance for colorectal cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Review
- Review
- Article
- Article
- Review
- Colorectal cancer screening in the COVID-19 era.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewParticipation goals for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the USA have not been met. Non-invasive screening strategies may improve CRC screening participation. We highlight recent literature on stool-based screening performance and expectations for emerging non-invasive screening tests. RECENT
findingsStool-based CRC screening detects screen-relevant colorectal neoplasia and outperforms a currently available plasma assay. Though modestly sensitive for CRC, adherence to annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is sub-optimal. Multi-target stool DNA (MT-sDNA) has greater adherence, superior sensitivity for screen-relevant lesions (including those in the proximal colon and sessile serrated architecture), and equivalent specificity to FIT over a 3-year period. Stool-based CRC screening tests are anticipated to reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC through detection of early-stage cancers and high-risk polyps. These endpoints in performance will need to be met by emerging blood sample-based tests in order have meaningful impact in clinical practice.
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.