ArticlePloS one2020
New fecal bacterial signature for colorectal cancer screening reduces the fecal immunochemical test false-positive rate in a screening population.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Innovative approaches in colorectal cancer screening: advances in detection methods and the role of artificial intelligence.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Review
- What do 'false-positive' stool tests really mean? Data from the New Hampshire colonoscopy registry.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
- 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
- Clinical performance study of a fecal bacterial signature test for colorectal cancer screening.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Cyclomodulins and Hemolysis inLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Recent advancements in the exploitation of the gut microbiome in the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer.Bioscience reports · 2021Review
- Tumor-Associated Microbiome: Where Do We Stand?International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- A New Biomarker of Fecal Bacteria for Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
17 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Guidelines recommend routine screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic adults starting at age 50. The most extensively used noninvasive test for CRC screening is the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), which has an overall sensitivity for CRC of approximately 61.0%-91.0%, which drops to 27.0%-67.0% for advanced adenomas. These figures contain a high false-positive rate and a low positive predictive value. This work aimed to develop a new, noninvasive CRC screening tool based on fecal bacterial markers capable of decreasing FIT false-positive rates in a FIT-positive population. We defined a fecal bacterial signature (RAID-CRC Screen) in a proof-of-concept with 172 FIT-positive individuals and validated the obtained results on an external cohort of 327 FIT-positive subjects. All study participants had joined the national CRC screening program. In the clinical validation of RAID-CRC Screen, a sensitivity of 83.9% and a specificity of 16.3% were obtained for the detection of advanced neoplasm lesions (advanced adenomas and/or CRC). FIT 20 μg/g produced 184 false-positive results. Using RAID-CRC Screen, this value was reduced to 154, thus reducing the false-positive rate by 16.3%. The RAID-CRC Screen test could be implemented in CRC screening programs to allow a significant reduction in the number of colonoscopies performed unnecessarily for FIT-positive participants of CRC screening programs.
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.