ReviewCancers2024
Repeat Faecal Immunochemical Testing for Colorectal Cancer Detection in Symptomatic and Screening Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hemorrhoids and Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review of Clinical Overlap, Diagnostic Misclassification, and Early Detection Strategies for Primary Care.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFaecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is widely used in bowel screening programmes and assessing symptomatic patients for suspected colorectal cancer (CRC). The evidence for single test performance of FIT in both settings is considerable; however, the use of a repeat test to increase sensitivity remains uncertain. We aimed to review what increase in test positivity would be generated by additional FITs, whether a repeated FIT detects previously missed CRC and advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN), and to estimate the sensitivity of double-FIT strategies to diagnose CRC and ACRN.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was performed using key search terms. Studies reporting the use of more than one FIT in the same screening round or planned assessment of a single symptomatic patient episode were included. Studies were categorised by the reported study population into asymptomatic, mixed (cohorts of combined asymptomatic, symptomatic, or high-risk surveillance), or symptomatic cohorts.
resultsA total of 68 studies were included for analysis (39 asymptomatic, 21 mixed, 7 symptomatic, and 1 study with discrete asymptomatic and symptomatic data). At a threshold of 10 µg Hb/g, the two-test positivity ranged between 8.1 and 34.5%, with an increase from the second test of 3-9.2 percentage points. Four out of five studies comparing one versus two tests for diagnosing CRC at 10 µg Hb/g identified additional cases with the second test, with a minimum of 50% reduction in missed CRC. At a threshold of 20 µg Hb/g, the second test increased the positivity by 1.3-6.7 percentage points, with a two-test positivity of between 5.1 and 25.0%. Using a threshold of 20 µg Hb/g, five out of seven studies had a 25% reduction in missed CRC. A meta-analysis estimated the double-FIT sensitivity at 10 µg Hb/g for CRC in mixed-risk and symptomatic cohorts to be 94% and 98%, respectively.
conclusionsRepeated use of FIT helps to diagnose more cases of CRC with a moderate increase in positivity. A double-FIT strategy at 10 µg Hb/g in mixed and symptomatic cohorts has a very high sensitivity for CRC.
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.