Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32724359›Full record

ArticleOncology letters2020

Multitarget stool DNA test compared with fecal occult blood test for colorectal cancer screening.

Cuiping Yang, Wei Wu, Yanping Yang, Xiaojin Yang, Jing Sun, Weiyu Zhang, Kun Liu, Haifeng Ying, Songyao Jiang, Xiaojun Yu and 11 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oncology letters, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Serrated Polyp Yield at Colonoscopy in Patients with Positive FIT, Positive mt-sDNA, and Colonoscopy Only: Data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Cuiping YangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai 201800, P.R. China.
Wei WuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai 200025, P.R. China.
Yanping YangDepartment of Laboratory, Jiujiang Maternity and Child Health Hospital, Jiujiang, Jiangxi 332000, P.R. China.
Xiaojin YangDepartment of Infection Control, Jiujiang No. 1 People's Hospital, Jiujiang, Jiangxi 332000, P.R. China.
Jing SunDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai 200025, P.R. China.
Weiyu ZhangDepartment of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai 200025, P.R. China.
Kun LiuDepartment of General Surgery, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai 201800, P.R. China.
Haifeng YingDepartment of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai 201800, P.R. China.
Songyao JiangDepartment of General Surgery, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai 201800, P.R. China.
Xiaojun YuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai 201800, P.R. China.
Yiqing ShiDepartment of General Surgery, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai 201800, P.R. China.
Yufen ZhouDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai 201800, P.R. China.
Shiyan ZhuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai 201800, P.R. China.
Ying XuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai 201800, P.R. China.
Yanfei DingDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai 201800, P.R. China.
Ling XieDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai 201800, P.R. China.
Boer CaiDepartment of Nursing Department of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai 201800, P.R. China.
Xiaorong XinDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai 201800, P.R. China.
Ping ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai 201800, P.R. China.
Ren ZhaoDepartment of General Surgery, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai 201800, P.R. China.
Yunlin WuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai 201800, P.R. China.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · CNRuijin Hospital · CNJiujiang First People's Hospital · CNJiujiang Maternal and Child Care Centres · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient screening is important for early diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). The present study aimed to compare the multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test with the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) for CRC screening. A total of 151 individuals were screened using colonoscopy, mt-sDNA and FOBT for the detection of CRC and adenoma. The results of the mt-sDNA test and FOBT were compared with colonoscopy to examine their sensitivity and specificity. Subsequently, the sensitivity and specificity of the mt-sDNA test were compared with those of FOBT in CRC and large adenoma. Stool samples were collected from patients with CRC (n=50) or large adenoma (n=51), as well as from normal controls (n=50). The mt-sDNA test outperformed FOBT in detecting CRC with a sensitivity of 90.0% (45/50) vs. 42.0% (21/50), advanced adenoma with a sensitivity of 70.6% (36/51) vs. 19.6% (10/51), stage I-III CRC with a sensitivity of 91.9% (34/37) vs. 29.7% (11/37), and stage IV CRC with a sensitivity of 84.6% (11/13) vs. 76.9% (10/13). In addition, the mt-sDNA test exhibited a specificity of 94.0% (47/50) in detecting CRC, which was superior to FOBT with a specificity of 90.0% (45/50). Therefore, the mt-sDNA test may have higher sensitivity and specificity compared with FOBT in diagnosing both CRC and advanced adenoma.

Indexed as

adenomacolorectal cancermultitarget stool DNAsensitivityspecificity

Identifiers

PMID32724359
PMCPMC7377198
OpenAlexW3029495247

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.