ArticleBMC medicine2022
Combining faecal immunochemical testing with blood test results for colorectal cancer risk stratification: a consecutive cohort of 16,604 patients presenting to primary care.
Article in BMC medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 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
- Article
- Article
- The diagnostic accuracy of the faecal immunochemical test for the detection of early-onset colorectal cancer: an age-stratified analysis in South West England.British journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Article
- COLOFIT: Development and Internal-External Validation of Models Using Age, Sex, Faecal Immunochemical and Blood Tests to Optimise Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer in Symptomatic Patients.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of FIT and a FIT-based model to optimise symptomatic diagnosis of colorectal cancer: health economic modelling for the COLOFIT project.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Faecal immunochemical tests for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer: An updated systematic review and multiple-threshold meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024Review
- Diagnostic application of the ColonFlag AI tool in combination with faecal immunochemical test in patients on an urgent lower gastrointestinal cancer pathway.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2024Article
- The performance of FIT-based and other risk prediction models for colorectal neoplasia in symptomatic patients: a systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Review
- Guidance on faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) to help diagnose colorectal cancer among symptomatic patients in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFaecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are used to triage primary care patients with symptoms that could be caused by colorectal cancer for referral to colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to determine whether combining FIT with routine blood test results could improve the performance of FIT in the primary care setting.
methodsResults of all consecutive FITs requested by primary care providers between March 2017 and December 2020 were retrieved from the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Demographic factors (age, sex), reason for referral, and results of blood tests within 90 days were also retrieved. Patients were followed up for incident colorectal cancer in linked hospital records. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of FIT alone, FIT paired with blood test results, and several multivariable FIT models, were compared.
resultsOne hundred thirty-nine colorectal cancers were diagnosed (0.8%). Sensitivity and specificity of FIT alone at a threshold of 10 μg Hb/g were 92.1 and 91.5% respectively. Compared to FIT alone, blood test results did not improve the performance of FIT. Pairing blood test results with FIT increased specificity but decreased sensitivity. Multivariable models including blood tests performed similarly to FIT alone.
conclusionsFIT is a highly sensitive tool for identifying higher risk individuals presenting to primary care with lower risk symptoms. Combining blood test results with FIT does not appear to lead to better discrimination for colorectal cancer than using FIT alone.
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.