ReviewDigestive diseases and sciences2025
FIT as a Comparator for Evaluating the Effectiveness of New Non-invasive CRC Screening Test.
Review in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) demonstrated that guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT), sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy are effective at reducing colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and mortality. Even if the impact of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) has not been evaluated within population-based RCT with mortality as the outcome, the results of comparative analyses with gFOBT provide strong indirect evidence of its effectiveness. Extensive information is also available on sensitivity and specificity of FIT, compared with gFOBT. FIT has almost universally replaced gFOBT in organized screening programs worldwide. Using FIT as a comparator is an efficient way to evaluate the effectiveness of new tests, with respect to test performance and relevant intermediate outcomes such as rates of interval cancer and late-stage cancer incidence. Direct comparison with FIT in the pre-screening evaluation of the accuracy of the new test will guide selection of the cut-off of the new test, and document the potential gain in sensitivity. Comparison in cross-sectional single-round screening evaluation can either use paired or parallel designs. Only parallel designs allow direct comparisons of participation rates. Relative accuracy can be derived in both designs with an assumption of similar colorectal cancer and precursor prevalence between groups in parallel designs. Finally, multiple-rounds prospective comparison will document potential effect on risk of CRC and precancerous lesions, and on absolute reductions in late-stage incidence as a proxy of mortality. This paper provides an overview of evidence and rationale for using FIT as a comparator for evaluating new non-invasive tests with repeated testing at short intervals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39560807What 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.