ArticleBMJ open2022
One-sample quantitative and two-sample qualitative faecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening: a cross-sectional study in China.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of a Traditional Chinese Medicine Constitution-Based Risk Score for Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia in Asymptomatic Chinese Adults.Cancer management and research · 2026Article
- Fecal hemoglobin concentration as a risk stratification tool for advanced colorectal neoplasm in a community-based screening program.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Age, frequency, and strategy optimization for organized colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis conducted in China for the years 2023-2038.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Review
- Real-world application of a fast stool DNA test for colorectal cancer screening in primary screening positive population.Cancer medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesQuantitative faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are widely used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the Western countries, whereas qualitative FITs are preferred in China. The present study aimed to compare the screening yield between one-sample quantitative FIT and two-sample qualitative FIT for CRC screening.
designA cross-sectional study.
settingA population-based CRC screening programme was conducted in 28 communities in Haining City, Zhejiang Province, China.
participantsConsecutive participants aged 40-74 years were invited to undergo the CRC screening programme. Two-sample qualitative FITs were offered between January 2019 and December 2019, and one-sample quantitative FIT was offered between August 2019 and February 2020. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were detection rates of advanced neoplasms, including CRCs and advanced adenomas. Secondary outcomes were positivity rates and colonoscopy resource demand for the two FITs. The positivity thresholds were 20 µg and 1-5 µg haemoglobin per gram of faeces for the quantitative and qualitative FITs, respectively.
resultsA total of 19 131 and 28 804 invitees were assigned to the two-sample qualitative and one-sample quantitative groups, respectively. Positivity rates were 14.2% for the two-sample qualitative FIT and 5.4% for the one-sample quantitative FIT. Detection rates of advanced colorectal neoplasms at colonoscopy using one-sample quantitative FIT and two-sample qualitative FIT were 17.6% (95% CI: 14.6% to 20.6%) and 10.5% (95% CI: 8.7% to 12.4%), respectively. Both detection rates of cancer and advanced adenoma were higher in the one-sample quantitative FIT group than those in the two-sample qualitative FIT group. Moreover, one-sample quantitative FIT significantly reduced the colonoscopy load for detection of one advanced neoplasm case (5, 95% CI: 5 to 7) than the two-sample qualitative FIT (10, 95% CI: 8 to 11).
conclusionsThe one-sample quantitative FIT for CRC screening increases the detection rate of advanced neoplasia and reduces the colonoscopy workload compared with the two-sample qualitative FIT.
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.