Observational studyBMJ open gastroenterology2025
Triaging colorectal urgent referrals in the COVID-19 era using faecal immunochemical testing: a prospective UK real-world multicentre cohort study.
Observational study in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2025. 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.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of the Faecal Immunochemical Test in Triage of Symptomatic Patients Referred for Colonoscopy: A Prospective Single-Centre Study.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDuring the early COVID-19 pandemic, UK guidelines advocated faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) with a threshold of 10 µg/g to help secondary care clinicians triage urgent suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) referrals. We aimed to evaluate the real-world performance and impact of FIT in a high-risk cohort referred against National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence NG12 (2015) criteria.
methodsMulticentre prospective observational cohort study of FIT at all four secondary care hospitals in Devon (UK) between 1 April 2020 and 31 December 2020. FIT use was at the discretion of primary and secondary care clinicians. Incident CRC cases were identified ≥12 months after general practitioner (GP) referral using regional National Bowel Cancer Audit data linkage. We assessed diagnostic accuracy and healthcare utilisation in patients with and without FIT.
resultsOverall, 6698 patients were included: 55% female, median age 72 years (IQR 65-82). Just over half (53%, 3552) of patients underwent FIT with a positivity rate of 34% (n=1237). CRC prevalence in patients with no FIT, positive FIT and negative FIT was 6% (189), 11% (137) and 0.5% (11), respectively. The prevalence of all cancers, including non-CRCs, was similar among FIT and no-FIT cohorts (p=0.74). Sensitivity and specificity of FIT for CRC were 0.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.96) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.69), respectively. Patients with negative FIT underwent fewer lower gastrointestinal endoscopies (no FIT 62% (1964) vs positive FIT 69% (857) vs negative FIT 36% (835)), p=0.0005).
conclusionsFIT is a useful triage tool for patients with suspected CRC which safely reduces endoscopy demand and prioritises those at greatest cancer risk. Standardised regional referral pathways, greater use of 'straight-to-test' investigations and GP support are needed to maximise its impact.
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.