Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 622

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of Fecal Occult-Blood Tests for Colorectal-Cancer Screening

Open access
Allison, James E., Tekawa, Irene S., Ransom, Laura J., Adrain, Alyn L.·1996·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hemoccult II, a widely used guaiac test for fecal occult blood, has a low sensitivity for detecting colorectal neoplasms in asymptomatic patients at average risk. In such patients, the performance characteristics of screening tests developed to improve on Hemoccult II are not known. METHODS: A set of three fecal occult-blood tests--Hemoccult II; Hemoccult II Sensa, a more sensitive guaiac test; and HemeSelect, an immunochemical test for human hemoglobin--was mailed to all patients 50 years of age or older who were scheduled for personal health appraisals at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in Oakland, California. The performance of each test and of a combination test (HemeSelect to confirm positive Hemoccult II Sensa results) was evaluated by identifying screened patients who had colorectal neoplasma (carcinoma or a polyp > or = 1 cm in diameter) in the two years after screening. RESULTS: Of the 10,702 eligible patients, 8104 (75.7 percent) had at least one interpretable sample and were screened on the basis of at least one test; 96 percent of these patients had complete two-year follow-up. The sensitivity of the tests for detecting carcinoma was lowest with Hemoccult II (37.1 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 19.7 to 54.6 percent), intermediate with the combination test (65.6 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 47.6 to 83.6 percent) and with HemeSelect (68.8 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 51.1 to 86.4 percent), and highest with Hemoccult II Sensa (79.4 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 64.3 to 94.5 percent). The specificity for detecting carcinoma was 86.7 percent with Hemoccult II Sensa, 94.4 percent with HemeSelect, 97.3 percent with the combination test, and 97.7 percent with Hemoccult II. HemeSelect and the combination test detected more colorectal carcinomas and polyps than Hemoccult II, with only slight increases in the number of colonoscopies needed. CONCLUSIONS: HemeSelect and a combination test in which HemeSelect is used to confirm positive Hemoccult II Sensa results improve on Hemoccult II in screening patients for colorectal carcinoma.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm199601183340304

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Cited by

See all 622

Metadata

Authors
Allison, J. E., Tekawa, I. S., Ransom, L. J., & Adrain, A. L.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1996-01-18
Volume
334
Issue
3
Pages
155-160
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2339085893
Cited by
622
References
9
FWCI
9.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of Fecal Occult-Blood Tests for Colorectal-Cancer Screening. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199601183340304
The paper
Allison, J. E., Tekawa, I. S., Ransom, L. J., & Adrain, A. L. (1996). A Comparison of Fecal Occult-Blood Tests for Colorectal-Cancer Screening. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199601183340304

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.