ArticleScientific reports2026
Head-to-head comparison of fecal occult blood tests for colorectal neoplasia detection in Chinese outpatients: a multicenter diagnostic trial.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal fecal occult blood test (FOBT) and hemoglobin (Hb) threshold for balancing diagnostic accuracy and endoscopic demand in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among Chinese outpatients remained unclear. A prospective multicenter trial was conducted from January 2017 to April 2021 across eight tertiary hospitals. Eligible outpatients were enrolled, whose stool samples were analyzed using quantitative fecal immunochemical test (FIT), self-administered qualitative FIT, general qualitative FIT, and gFOBT. All participants underwent colonoscopy. The primary outcome was the sensitivity of FOBTs for CRC detection. A total of 2,930 participants were enrolled, with 2,618 participants meeting inclusion criteria and completing FOBTs and colonoscopies. At the threshold of 5.2 µg/g, quantitative FIT demonstrated comparable sensitivity for CRC detection (90.1%) to self-administered qualitative FIT (87.1%), general qualitative FIT (91.1%), and gFOBT (82.2%) (all P > 0.05). The positive rate of quantitative FIT (12.4%) was significantly lower than that of self-administered qualitative FIT (27.5%), general qualitative FIT (24.2%), and gFOBT (23.0%) (all P < 0.05). Quantitative FIT showed superior specificity (93.9%) compared to self-administered qualitative FIT (79.5%), general qualitative FIT (83.6%), and gFOBT (80.7%) (all P < 0.05). Furthermore, quantitative FIT at 5.2 µg/g exhibited higher PPV and LR + for CRC, advanced adenoma (AA) and advanced neoplasia (AN) than other FOBTs. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and area under the curve (AUC) revealed excellent accuracy for CRC detection (AUC: 0.951, 95% CI: 0.920-0.981). The quantitative FIT with a threshold of 5.2 µg/g demonstrated superior performance for early CRC screening in Chinese outpatients.
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.