Cited by 253

Comparison of Guaiac-Based and Quantitative Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Testing in a Population at Average Risk Undergoing Colorectal Cancer Screening

Park, Dong Il, Ryu, Seungho, Kim, Young-Ho, Lee, Suck-Ho, Lee, Chang Kyun, Eun, Chang Soo, Han, Dong Soo·2010·American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract

Objectives Although some studies have shown that the quantitative, immunochemical fecal occult blood test (FOBT) (qFIT) has better performance characteristics than the standard guaiac-based FOBT (GT) for identifying advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN), there is limited information on test performance of these tests in average-risk populations. Methods Seven hundred seventy consecutive average-risk patients from four centers who were undergoing screening colonoscopy also provided stool samples. Stool specimens from three consecutive bowel movements were applied to a hemoccult II test card (Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, CA) and OC-SENSA MICRO (Eiken Chemical, Tokyo, Japan) sampling probes at the same time. We measured the diagnostic value of the qFIT for detecting an ACRN by using three criteria: sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. A receiver operating characteristic curve for determining the qFIT cutoff values and the number of tests that best discriminated between ACRNs and other findings were determined. Results Seventy-eight ACRNs were identified during colonoscopy. At all hemoglobin thresholds, the sensitivity of the qFIT was higher than that of the GT for cancer or ACRN. The sensitivity and specificity of the GT for detecting advanced adenomas, cancer, and ACRNs were 13.6%/92.4%, 30.8%/92.4%, and 16.7%/92.9%, respectively. Using the 100 ng/ml cut point and three-sample qFIT results, the sensitivity and specificity of the qFIT for detecting advanced adenomas, c…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ajg.2010.179

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Observed detection rates for advanced precancers were lower than those reported for FIT with advanced conventional adenomas and similar to those reported with SSAs.

    “observed detection rates for these advanced precancers were lower than those reported for FIT with advanced conventional adenomas [9, 11, 26] and similar to those reported with SSAs [9, 11, 13].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Park, D. I., Ryu, S., Kim, Y.-H., Lee, S.-H., Lee, C. K., Eun, C. S., & Han, D. S.
Venue
American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2010-09
Volume
105
Issue
9
Pages
2017-2025
ISSN
0002-9270
Cited by
253
References
0
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2012-02-06)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review