ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2024
Comparative Performance of Common Fecal Immunochemical Tests : A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Annals of internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03264898 (Comparative Effectiveness of Fecal Immunochemical Tests With Optical Colonoscopy), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 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.
Comparative Effectiveness of Fecal Immunochemical Tests With Optical Colonoscopy (R01 CA215034)
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mailed Outreach for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers: The CARES Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA internal medicine · 2026Trial
- Anatomical location of colorectal neoplasia in patients with positive stool test (multitarget stool deoxyribonucleic acid or fecal immunochemical test) results: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Detecting Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia at Surveillance Colonoscopy.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Landscape of Diagnostic, Prognostic and Predictive Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer: From Genomics to Multi-Omics Integration in Precision Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Interpretable Machine Learning Models Based on Blood Cell-Derived Inflammatory Indices for Identifying Colorectal Neoplasia: A Retrospective Study.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Article
- Comparative environmental impact analysis of screening tests for colorectal cancer: a single-centre life cycle assessment.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Is Cognitive Impairment Associated with Inadequate Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy?Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025Article
- Diagnostic efficacy of fecal-based miR-92a for advanced colorectal neoplasia: a prospective multicenter screening trial.Military Medical Research · 2025Observational
- Fecal Immunochemical Test Positivity Thresholds: An International Survey of Population-Based Screening Programs.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Review
- Navigating the evolving landscape of colorectal cancer screening with a practical framework: a comprehensive analysis of existing and emerging technologies for informed decision-making.Oncology reviews · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite widespread use of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, data to guide test selection are limited.
objectiveTo compare the performance characteristics of 5 commonly used FITs, using colonoscopy as the reference standard.
designCross-sectional study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03264898).
settingThree U.S. academic medical centers and affiliated endoscopy units.
participantsPatients aged 50 to 85 years undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy.
interventionParticipants completed 5 different FITs before their colonoscopy, including 4 qualitative tests (Hemoccult ICT, Hemosure iFOB, OC-Light S FIT, QuickVue iFOB) and 1 quantitative test (OC-Auto FIT, which was run at the manufacturer's threshold for positivity of >100 ng/mL). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was test performance (sensitivity and specificity) for each of the 5 FITs for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN), defined as advanced polyps or CRC. Positivity rates, positive and negative predictive values, and rates of unevaluable tests were compared. Multivariable models were used to identify factors affecting sensitivity.
resultsA total of 3761 participants were enrolled, with a mean age of 62.1 years (SD, 7.8); 63.2% of participants were female, 5.7% were Black, 86.4% were White, and 28.7% were Hispanic. There were 320 participants with ACN (8.5%), including 9 with CRC (0.2%). The test positivity rate varied 4-fold (3.9% to 16.4%) across FITs. Rates of unevaluable FITs ranged from 0.2% to 2.5%. The sensitivity for ACN varied from 10.1% to 36.7%, and specificity varied from 85.5% to 96.6%. Differences in sensitivity between FITs were all statistically significantly different except between Hemosure iFOB and QuickVue iFOB, and specificity differences were all statistically significantly different from one another. In addition to FIT brand, distal location of ACN was also associated with higher FIT sensitivity. LIMITATION: The study did not assess the programmatic sensitivity of annual FIT.
conclusionAlthough considered a single class, FITs have varying test performance for detecting ACN and should not be considered interchangeable. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.
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.