ArticleCureus2025
Assessment of Fecal Occult Blood Testing in Acute Hospital Settings: Perspectives of Internal Medicine Residents in a Multicenter Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is an outpatient screening tool for colorectal cancer. However, it is widely used in the hospital setting among hospitalized patients for a myriad of reasons. The aim of our study is to understand the knowledge and current utilization of FOBT among internal medicine (IM) residents across multiple training programs in the United States. Methods This was a multicenter survey conducted among 25 IM residency programs. A 15-item questionnaire survey on FOBT was emailed to IM residents in May 2022, at the end of the academic year, with two bi-weekly follow-up reminders. Logistic regression models and Stata statistical software version 14.2 (StataCorp, College Station, TX) were used for the analysis. Those included in the study were IM residents at any level of training. The exclusion criterion was other residents not enrolled in an IM program. Results A total of 227 (100%) IM residents responded to the survey (n=96 (42.2%) in post-graduate year (PGY)-1, n=67 (29.5%) in PGY-2, n=64 (28.2%) in PGY-3). Overall, 151 (66.5%) residents sometimes or always ordered FOBT during their respective training period and 153 (67.4%) ordered this test more often in inpatient than in outpatient settings. Approximately 136 (60%) residents had knowledge of dietary restrictions but only 73 (32%) residents questioned the patients before ordering it. The triggers for ordering FOBT were mostly anemia (174, 32%) followed by a change in stool color (102, 19%), weight loss (99, 18%) and bleeding per rectum (71, 13%). Majority (141, 62%) of the respondents felt influenced by their supervisors and 130 (57.2%) felt that FOBT results will change their management. Overall, as postgraduate year training increased, trainees were less likely to order FOBT for suspected GI bleeding. Conclusion Our survey results showed that residents were influenced by their supervisors and ordered FOBT largely in the inpatient setting. Although there was noted improvement in understanding of the futility of FOBT in suspected acute GI bleeding, more than half of final-year trainees would still order FOBT. There is a need for better education of IM trainees in the utilization of FOBT.
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.