ArticlePloS one2021
Factors affecting the follow-up time after a positive result in the fecal occult blood test.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Circulating Nucleic Acids in Colorectal Cancer: Diagnostic and Prognostic Value.Disease markers · 2024Review
- Potential prognostic and predictive value of UBE2N, IMPDH1, DYNC1LI1 and HRASLS2 in colorectal cancer stool specimens.Biomedical reports · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2010, Taiwan included the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) under preventive health insurance services. For patients whose test positive, receiving follow-ups is paramount. This study investigated factors affecting the follow-up time of these patients. This retrospective study used data from the colorectal cancer screening archives. The study period was from 2010 to 2013, and the subjects were 50-75-year-old persons who tested positive for FOBT. The t test, one-way ANOVA, and multiple regression were performed to address the differences in the mean tracking period between variables such as the population's demographic characteristics. The mean follow-up time for the 98,482 participants whose screening results were positive exhibited significant differences (p < 0.001) according to medical unit region and classification, age, screening location, family history, examination method, and diagnosis. The model predicting the mean follow-up time predicted a period of 10.079 days longer for those whose hospital was on an offshore island than that of those whose hospital was in the eastern regions. The follow-up time was 1.257 days shorter for people who were inpatients than those who were outpatients and was 8.902 days longer for people who underwent double contrast barium enema plus flexible sigmoidoscopy than those who underwent other examination methods. Patients with a family history of colorectal cancer and those whose examination results indicated cancer had a follow-up time of 2.562 and 2.476 days shorter than those who did not know their family history and those with other results, respectively. Factors affecting the follow-up time of people whose FOBT results were positive consisted of the location and classification of the follow-up institution, age, screening location, family history, examination method, and diagnosis. This provides valuable references for improving the cancer screening program.
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.