ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
Navigating false-positive outcomes after stool-based colorectal cancer screening tests: a scoping review.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFor patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening with stool-based tests followed by a negative colonoscopy, management can be challenging due to potential concern for upper aerodigestive cancer or extra-colonic cancer. We sought to synthesize contemporary clinical approaches and cancer outcomes following a positive stool test and a negative colonoscopy and to identify areas in need of further research.
methodsBecause of the heterogeneity of published research and available evidence, we conducted a scoping review of English-language, peer-reviewed, and full-text articles through September 2025. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts followed by full text assessment, and data extraction. Data were synthesized thematically to explore the outcomes and work-up strategies associated with false-positive results in FIT and mt-sDNA tests within the context of extra-colonic cancer screening.
resultsOf 3442 studies identified, 49 underwent full text review of which 8 met inclusion criteria. Most patients were female and ≥50 years; however, reporting of demographic information was variable. The brand of stool-test, definition of stool-test positivity, definition of negative colonoscopy, and follow-up time were variably reported and defined. In terms of outcome, ~0.5% of patients had CRC on second colonoscopy. Incidence of non-colorectal aerodigestive or upper GI cancer ranged from 0-4.3%.
conclusionThere is a critical need for a standardized reporting framework among studies evaluating outcomes after positive stool-test and negative colonoscopy to better synthesize across studies and ultimately, improve clinical management.
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.