ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2022
Cross-cultural validation of stool Based Colorectal cancer screening methods in the North West of Iran.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A scoping review of DNA methylation biomarkers for non-invasive detection of colorectal cancer at the CpG site level.Clinical epigenetics · 2026Article
- The accuracy of the FIT in detecting advanced neoplasm is highest in young people aged 40 to 49 years: an analysis based on sex and age.International journal of colorectal disease · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Globally, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of death from cancer. Incidence and mortality from CRCboth can be reduced and prevented using screening and early detection programs. The current study aimed to assess the feasibility of the colorectal cancer screening program in Northwest of Iran. Methods: The study designed as a cross-cultural analytic study, to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of stool-based tests compared with colonoscopy, during 2016-2020. All individuals first were assessed with our CRC risk assessment tool, then eligible volunteers entered the study. Colonoscopy was performed on all participants, also stool-based tests including traditional guaiac, high-sensitivity guaiac-based, fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and multitarget stool DNA (Mt-sDNA) panel tests were performed. Results: Mt-sDNA test panel had a sensitivity of 77.8% (95% CI: 40-97.2)for detecting colorectal cancer with a specificity of 91.2% (95% CI:85.4-95.2). The FIT test alone had a lower sensitivity (66.7%; 95% CI:29.9-92.5) and almost the same specificity of 93.9% (95% CI: 88.7-97.2) for cancer detection. Mt-sDNA test had better diagnostic accuracy than the FIT (AUC = 0.85 vs 0.80), and is a more useful screening test. Positive and negative predictive values for cancer detection for both Mt-sDNA and FIT tests were almost the same results, however Mt-sDNA test had better NPV results than the FIT test alone. Conclusion: Our results showed that both Mt-sDNA panel and the FIT test had acceptable cut-off points for cancer detection, however, Mt-sDNA test had better diagnostic accuracy.
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.