ArticleBMJ open2022
A cohort study of duplicate faecal immunochemical testing in patients at risk of colorectal cancer from North-West England.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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
- Two-sample fecal immunochemical testing as a tool to avert colonoscopy in symptomatic patients: a prospective multicenter cohort study.Endoscopy · 2026Observational
- Article
- Article
- 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
- 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
- Faecal haemoglobin concentration and colorectal cancer site, stage and grade in a symptomatic cohort.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024Article
- Review
- FIT for the future.Frontline gastroenterology · 2024Article
- The increasing burden of the 2-week wait colorectal cancer pathway in a single centre: the impact of faecal immunochemical tests.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2024Article
- Faecal Immunochemical Testing to Detect Colorectal Cancer in Symptomatic Patients: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Double faecal immunochemical testing in patients with symptoms suspicious of colorectal cancer.The British journal of surgery · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe sought to investigate if duplicate faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) sampling improves the negative and positive predictive value of patients thought to be at risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Specifically, we aimed to investigate whether the proportion of FIT-negative CRC missed by a single FIT test in symptomatic patients could be reduced by duplicate FIT testing.
designA retrospective service evaluation cohort study of the diagnostic accuracy of duplicate FIT testing.
settingPatients referred from primary care with suspected CRC to four secondary care trusts in North-West England.
participants28 622 patients over 18-years-old with lower gastrointestinal symptoms suggestive of CRC who completed two FIT samples. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The performance of duplicate FIT for detecting CRC at a threshold of 10 µgHb/g.
resultsThe sensitivity if either test was >10 µgHb/g was 0.978 (0.955-0.989), specificity was 0.662 (0.657-0.668), positive predictive value 0.031 (0.028-0.035) and negative predictive value 1.00 (0.999-1.00). Despite two-thirds of patients (18952) being negative following two tests, at this threshold only seven CRC were missed over a 26-month period. All seven patients had other high-risk features which should have prompted investigation.
conclusionsThis study suggests that in routine NHS practice, a duplicate FIT sample strategy together with clinical evaluation for evidence of anaemia and weight loss is superior to a single FIT sample alone and would allow symptomatic patients to be managed in primary care without the need for urgent referral to secondary care for urgent colonic imaging.
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.