ArticleBJS open2024
Colorectal cancer prevalence in faecal immunochemical test non-returners: potential for health inequality in symptomatic referral pathways.
Article in BJS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sequencing AI Automation and Data Interoperability in Oncology Using a Scenario-Planning Framework Coupled With Discrete-Event Simulation: Proof-of-Concept Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Sociodemographic variation in symptomatic faecal immunochemical testing return: a population-based analysis of 125 659 patients.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to describe the faecal immunochemical test non-return rate of those referred with high-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer from primary care, and the clinical outcomes of the 'non-returners'.
methodsFrom January 2019 to July 2021, patients referred to secondary care with symptoms suspicious of colorectal cancer and a referral priority of urgent or urgent suspicion of cancer were sent a faecal immunochemical test. All patients were investigated regardless of faecal immunochemical test return or result. Demographics and clinical outcomes such as colorectal cancer prevalence were compared between those who returned a faecal immunochemical test and non-returners.
resultsOf 7345 patients included in the study, 874 (11.9%) did not return a faecal immunochemical test. Non-returner characteristics included male sex (P = 0.040), younger age (median age 57 versus 65 years, P < 0.001), per rectal bleeding (P < 0.001) and lower socioeconomic status (median Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, 6 versus 7, P < 0.001) compared with those who returned a faecal immunochemical test. Of 6294 patients undergoing colorectal investigation, there was a greater prevalence of colorectal cancer (5.4% versus 3.6% P = 0.032) and significant bowel pathology than in the non-returners (15.3% versus 9.8%, P < 0.001). With a median follow-up of 25 months, the colorectal cancer prevalence for the entire 7345 cohort was equal between those who returned and did not return a faecal immunochemical test (3.2% versus 3.8%, P = 0.108). Of note, the non-returners diagnosed with colorectal cancer were younger (median age 64 versus 73 years, P < 0.001) and from a lower socioeconomic area (median Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 4 versus 7, P = 0.015) than faecal immunochemical test returners.
conclusionPatients referred to secondary care, with symptoms suspicious of colorectal cancer, that did not return a faecal immunochemical test had a similar colorectal cancer prevalence to those that returned the test.
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.