ArticleDiscover oncology2022
Factors associated with positive predictive value of preliminary screening in a two-step screening strategy for colorectal neoplasms in China.
Article in Discover oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors associated with false fecal immunochemical test results in colorectal cancer screening.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Colonoscopy outcomes of primary screening negative participants highlight the missed diagnosis problem of colorectal cancer screening: an observational study from Yuexiu district in Guangzhou, China.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Age- and sex-stratified detection rates and associated factors of colorectal neoplasia in the Tianjin colorectal cancer screening program from 2012 to 2020.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- The stoolTranslational cancer research · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe positive predictive value (PPV) of high risk factor questionnaire (HRFQ) plus fecal immunochemical test (FIT) as preliminary screening strategy for colorectal-related neoplasia is relatively low. We aim to explore independent factors associated with PPVs of HRFQ combined FIT for selecting high risk individuals for colonoscopy.
methodsA total of 6971 residents were enrolled in a community-based screening program. Participants who had positive results of HRFQ and/or FIT and subsequently received colonoscopy were involved. The associations of socio-demographic factors, lifestyle behaviors, and high risk factors of colorectal cancer with PPVs of HRFQ, FIT, and their combination were evaluated by multivariable logistic regression models.
resultsAmong 572 involved cases, 249 (43.5%) colorectal neoplasms were detected by colonoscopy, including 71 advanced adenoma (12.4%) and 9 colorectal cancer (CRC) (1.6%). The PPVs of preliminary screening were 43.5% for total colorectal neoplasms, 14.0% for advanced neoplasm, and 1.6% for CRC. Adding positive HRFQ to FIT could improve the PPV from 3.5 to 8.0% for detecting CRC. Preliminarily screened positive individuals who were males [adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.95, 95% CI 1.31, 2.90; p < 0.001], elders (> 60 years) (AOR: 1.70, 95% CI 1.17, 2.46; p = 0.005), or ex-/current smokers (AOR: 3.04, 95% CI 1.31, 7.09; p = 0.10) had higher odds of PPVs of detecting colorectal neoplasms.
conclusionsCombining HRFQ and FIT could largely improve PPVs for screening advanced neoplasm and CRC. Gender and age-specific FIT cut-off values as well as initiating ages for CRC screening might be recommended to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of current screening algorithm.
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.