ArticleBJS open2025
Single and double faecal immunochemical test strategies are effective in risk stratification for patients with symptoms of per rectal bleeding suggestive of colorectal cancer.
Article in BJS open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFaecal immunochemical test (FIT) results triage urgent suspicion of colorectal cancer (USoC) referrals to investigation. As FIT detects microscopic blood, its role in patients with per rectal bleeding (PRB) is controversial. Patients are encouraged to submit sample stools without evident bleeding. The positivity rate, colorectal cancer (CRC) detection accuracy, and benefits from repeated FITs in patients with rectal bleeding are unknown.
methodsA prospective dataset of USoC referrals for CRC was interrogated for referral symptoms, FIT results, and colorectal investigation outcomes. These were linked to South-East Scotland Cancer Network data to ensure complete CRC outcome data. A FIT result of 10 µg Hb/g or more was considered positive. The primary outcome of interest was diagnostic performance of FIT in patients with PRB compared with symptoms excluding PRB, including sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value (NPV). Secondarily, the impact of double FITs in these cohorts was investigated.
resultsA total of 5686 patients completed a FIT and subsequent colorectal investigation, and 2130 (37.5%) of these had PRB as a referral symptom. FIT positivity was higher in patients with PRB compared with no PRB (34.7% versus 18.6%; P < 0.001). When two successive FITs were completed, the positivity rate rose to 43.5%. Significant bowel pathology (CRC, advanced adenoma, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)) was more prevalent in patients with PRB. The majority of CRCs in the PRB group were located distally (PRB 94.1% versus no PRB 51.5%; P < 0.001). The sensitivity for CRC was significantly greater in those with PRB compared with no PRB (98.0% (95% confidence interval (c.i.) 95.1-99.2) versus 82.5% (95% c.i. 74.6-88.9)), with respective NPVs of 99.8% and 99.4%. Double FITs increased CRC sensitivity in the non-PRB group, removing the difference in sensitivity between the two groups observed with one test (PRB 100% (95% c.i. 92.3-100) versus no PRB 92.9% (95% c.i. 79.4-97.8)). The NPV for CRC in PRB when two FITs were complete was 100% (99.0-100).
conclusionRectal bleeding makes up one-third of USoC referrals to secondary care. The FIT positivity rate is 34.7% and it has a high sensitivity for CRC. Patients with PRB with two negative FITs have a negligible CRC prevalence.
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.