SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2022
Faecal immunochemical test to triage patients with possible colorectal cancer symptoms: meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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.
A Retrospective Review of the Secondary-care Colorectal Cancer Pathway Within NHS Lothian: An Evaluation of 3 Years of Pathway Performance
Optimising Patient Pathways for Earlier Detection of Colorectal Cancer in Secondary Care: Implementation of Multiple FIT Testing
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative faecal immunochemical tests to guide colorectal cancer pathway referral in primary care. A systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Is Negative Fecal Immunochemical Test Reassuring? The Cumulative Risk of Colorectal Cancer after Multiple Negative Tests.Gut and liver · 2026Article
- Assessing the impact of a single qualitative fecal immunochemical test on colonoscopy prioritization and mortality in risk-stratified patients with suspected colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2025Article
- Triaging colorectal urgent referrals in the COVID-19 era using faecal immunochemical testing: a prospective UK real-world multicentre cohort study.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025Observational
- Variations in the Use of Faecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) in Primary Care in England: A Population-Based Cohort of 531,735 FITs from 495,121 Patients Between 2019 and 2023.Clinical epidemiology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of the Faecal Immunochemical Test in Triage of Symptomatic Patients Referred for Colonoscopy: A Prospective Single-Centre Study.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025Article
- Faecal immunochemical test to triage patients with possible colorectal cancer symptoms: insights from the New Zealand FIT for symptomatic pilot.Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Colorectal cancer risk stratification using a polygenic risk score in symptomatic primary care patients-a UK Biobank retrospective cohort study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Review
- Neoplasia detection in FIT positive screening colonoscopies compared with an age-controlled symptomatic cohort: a retrospective review.Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Blood-based biomarkers and novel technologies for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and adenomas: a narrative review.Biomarkers in medicine · 2024Review
- Unlocking Early Cancer Detection: Exploring Biomarkers, Circulating DNA, and Innovative Technological Approaches.Cureus · 2023Review
- Interval colorectal cancers after negative faecal immunochemical test in the New Zealand Bowel Screening Pilot.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Sociodemographic variations in the uptake of faecal immunochemical tests in primary care: a retrospective study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Article
- Performance of the fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer and advanced neoplasia in individuals under age 50.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Review
- Double faecal immunochemical testing in patients with symptoms suspicious of colorectal cancer.The British journal of surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Role of the faecal immunochemical test in patients with risk-stratified suspected colorectal cancer symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis to inform the ACPGBI/BSG guidelines.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2022Article
- Faecal immunochemical test: challenges and opportunities for cancer diagnosis in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis review evaluated the utility of single quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) as a triaging tool for patients with symptoms of possible colorectal cancer, the effect of symptoms on FIT accuracy, and the impact of triaging incorporating FIT on service provision.
methodsFive databases were searched. Meta-analyses of the extracted FIT sensitivities and specificities for detection of colorectal cancer at reported f-Hb thresholds were performed. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity and specificity of FIT for advanced colorectal neoplasia and serious bowel disease. Subgroup analysis by FIT brand and symptoms was undertaken.
resultsFifteen prospective cohort studies, including 28 832 symptomatic patients were included. At the most commonly reported f-Hb positivity threshold of ≥ 10 µg Hb/g faeces (n=13), the summary sensitivity was 88.7% (95% c.i. 85.2 to 91.4) and the specificity was 80.5% (95% c.i. 75.3 to 84.8) for colorectal cancer. At lower limits of detection of ≥ 2 µg Hb/g faeces, the summary sensitivity was 96.8% (95% c.i. 91.0 to 98.9) and the specificity was 65.6% (95% c.i. 59.0 to 71.6). At the upper f-Hb positivity thresholds of ≥ 100 µg Hb/g faeces and ≥ 150 µg Hb/g faeces, summary sensitivities were 68.1% (95% c.i. 59.2 to 75.9) and 66.3% (95% c.i. 52.2 to 78.0), with specificities of 93.4% (95% c.i. 91.3 to 95.1) and 95.1% (95% c.i. 93.6 to 96.3) respectively. FIT sensitivity was comparable between different assay brands. FIT sensitivity may be higher in patients reporting rectal bleeding.
conclusionSingle quantitative FIT at lower f-Hb positivity thresholds can adequately exclude colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients and provides a data-based approach to prioritization of colonoscopy resources.
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.