Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32778002›Full record

ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2021

Optimal diagnostic accuracy of quantitative faecal immunochemical test positivity thresholds for colorectal cancer detection in primary health care: A community-based cohort study.

Noel Pin-Vieito, Laura García Nimo, Luis Bujanda, Begona Román Alonso, María Ángeles Gutierrez-Stampa, Vanessa Aguilar-Gama, Isabel Portillo, Joaquín Cubiella

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Noel Pin-VieitoGastroenterology Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd), Ourense, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0526-4104
Laura García NimoInstituto de Investigacién Biomédica Galicia Sur, Ourense, Spain.
Luis BujandaGastroenterology Department, Donostia Hospital, Biodonostia Institute, CIBERehd, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, San Sebastián, Spain.
Begona Román AlonsoAdmission and Clinical Documentation Department, Donostia Hospital, San Sebastián, Spain.
María Ángeles Gutierrez-StampaOsakidetza, OSI Donostialdea, Altza Primary Care; Biodonostia Health Research Institute, San Sebastián, Spain.
Vanessa Aguilar-GamaOsakidetza, OSI Donostialdea, Altza Primary Care; Biodonostia Health Research Institute, San Sebastián, Spain.
Isabel PortilloColorectal Cancer Screening Programme, Osakidetza, Basque Health Service, Bilbao, Spain.
Joaquín CubiellaGastroenterology Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd), Ourense, Spain.
Biogipuzkoa Health Research Institute · ESGalicia Sur Biomedical Foundation · ESOsakidetza · ESUniversity of the Basque Country · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOptimizing colonoscopy resources is challenging, and information regarding performing diagnostic quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) in daily clinical practice in primary health care is still limited. This study aimed to assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of varying FIT positivity thresholds on colorectal cancer (CRC) detection in primary health care.

methodsA retrospective cohort study of 38,675 asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with a FIT (OC-Sensor™) performed between 2012 and 2016 in a primary health-care setting, using a clinical laboratory database of two Spanish areas linked with the National Health System's Hospital Discharge Records Database. The primary outcome was 2-year CRC incidence.

resultsThe mean age of the participants was 63.2 years; 17,792 (46.0%) were male. CRC prevalence was 1.7% (650/38,675). The percentage of patients with a FIT result above the threshold was 20.7% and 14.6% for 10 μg Hb/g faeces and 20 μg Hb/g faeces thresholds, respectively. Sensitivity was 90.5% (95% confidence interval 88.0%-92.5%) at a 10 μg Hb/g faeces threshold, and this decreased by 3.1% when a 20 μg Hb/g faeces threshold was used. The negative predictive value for CRC was at least 99.2% in any subgroup analysed. At a 20 μg Hb/g faeces threshold, less than one additional CRC would be missed per 1000 patients investigated, while approximately 1.3 times more colonoscopy examinations were needed to identify an incidence of CRC using the lowest threshold for any situation analysed.

conclusionsIn primary health care, a quantitative FIT threshold should be tailored to colonoscopy capacity and CRC prevalence in specific populations.

Indexed as

Occult BloodAgedAged, 80 and overColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFecesFemaleHemoglobinsHumansImmunohistochemistryMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificitySpainHemoglobinscolorectal cancerdiagnostic performancefaecal biomarkersfaecal haemoglobinfaecal immunochemical testprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID32778002
PMCPMC8259257
OpenAlexW3048381915

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.