ArticlePloS one2023
Clinical performance study of a fecal bacterial signature test for colorectal cancer screening.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is the most widely used test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. RAID-CRC Screen is a new non-invasive test based on fecal bacterial markers, developed to complement FIT by increasing its specificity. The test was previously clinically evaluated in FIT-positive patients (>20 μg of hemoglobin/g of feces, "FIT20"), in which it reduced the proportion of false positive results by 16.3% while maintaining most of FIT20's sensitivity. The aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of a CRC screening program using RAID-CRC Screen in addition to FIT20 as a triage test in a European screening population undergoing screening colonoscopy with a CRC screening program with FIT20 alone in the same cohort. A cohort of 2481 subjects aged > 55 years from the German screening colonoscopy program was included. The colonoscopy findings were used as the gold standard in calculating the diagnostic capacity of the tests and included 15 CRC and 257 advanced neoplasia cases. RAID-CRC Screen added to FIT20 provided the same sensitivity as FIT20 alone (66.7%) in detecting CRC and a significantly higher specificity (97.0% vs. 96.1%, p<0.0001). The positive predictive value was 11.9% when using RAID-CRC Screen and 9.5% with FIT20 alone, and the negative predictive value was 99.8% in the two scenarios. For advanced neoplasia detection, the use of RAID-CRC Screen yielded significantly lower sensitivity than with FIT20 alone (17.5% vs. 21.8%, p = 0.0009), and the overall specificity was significantly higher when using RAID-CRC Screen compared with FIT20 alone (98.2% vs. 97.8%, p = 0.0039). Our findings confirm the results obtained in previous clinical studies in a CRC screening setting, showing the potential of RAID-CRC Screen to increase the overall specificity of FIT-based screening.
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.