ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Utility of Stool-Based Tests for Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Comprehensive Review.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Fecal DNA SDC2 methylation test for colorectal cancer diagnosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2026Pooled it
- Circulating miRNAs as liquid biopsy biomarkers for diagnosis in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Pooled it
- The COMPLETE-CRC Screening Initiative: Increasing Colonoscopy Completion After Positive Stool-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- A Portable Colorimetric Biosensor Platform for Urinary Colorectal Cancer Biomarker Testing in Low-Resource Settings.Biosensors · 2026Article
- Clinical validation of a multi-model blood cfDNA methylation assay for early-stage gastrointestinal cancer screening.Journal of advanced research · 2026Article
- The prevalence of negative fecal occult blood test (FOBT) among colorectal cancer patients in a tertiary care center.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026Article
- Fecal Immunochemical Test and Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Real-World Practice: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Screening, Prognostic, and Predictive Molecular Tools for Colorectal Cancer: Recent Advances in the Classical Background.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Article
- Potential Impact of Updated Bayesian Deduction in Medicine: Application to Colonoscopy Prioritization.Cancers · 2025Article
- Non-invasive colorectal cancer biomarkers: HAND2 and GPM6A methylation in circulating tumour DNA.Cancer cell international · 2025Article
- Faecal occult blood testing: a review of its use and common misutilisation.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Colonic Aging and Colorectal Cancer: An Unignorable Interplay and Its Translational Implications.Biology · 2025Review
- Therapeutic Colorectal Cancer Vaccines: Emerging Modalities and Translational Opportunities.Vaccines · 2025Review
- Molecularly Imprinted Polymer Advanced Hydrogels as Tools for Gastrointestinal Diagnostics.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Biomarkers for colorectal cancer detection: An insight into colorectal cancer and FDA-approved biomarkers.BioImpacts : BI · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant global health issue where early detection is crucial for improving treatment outcomes and survival rates. This comprehensive review assesses the utility of stool-based tests in CRC screening, including traditional fecal occult blood tests (FOBT), both chemical (gFOBT) and immunochemical techniques (FIT), as well as multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) as a novel and promising biomarker. The advancements, limitations and the impact of false positives and negatives of these methods are examined. The review analyzed various studies on current screening methods, focusing on laboratory tests and biomarkers. Findings indicate that while FIT and mt-sDNA tests offer enhanced sensitivity and specificity over traditional guaiac-based FOBT, they also come with higher costs and potential for increased false positives. FIT shows better patient adherence due to its ease to use, but incorrect usage and interpretation of FOBT can lead to significant diagnostic errors. In conclusion, despite the improvements in FOBT methods like FIT in CRC detection, careful consideration of each method's benefits and drawbacks is essential. Effective CRC screening programs should combine various methods tailored to specific population needs, aiming for early detection and reduced mortality rates.
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.