Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 372

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Screening for Colorectal Neoplasms With New Fecal Occult Blood Tests: Update on Performance Characteristics

Allison, J. E., Sakoda, L. C., Levin, T. R., Tucker, J. P., Tekawa, I. S., Cuff, T., Pauly, M. P., Shlager, L., Palitz, A. M., Zhao, W. K., Schwartz, J. S., Ransohoff, D. F., Selby, J. V.·2007·JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: One type of fecal occult blood test (FOBT), the unrehydrated guaiac fecal occult blood test (GT), is recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force and the Institute of Medicine for use in screening programs, but it has relatively low sensitivity as a single test for detecting advanced colonic neoplasms (cancer and adenomatous polyps > or = 1 cm in diameter). Thus, improving the sensitivity of FOBT should make colon cancer screening programs that use these tests more effective. METHODS: We assessed prospectively the performance characteristics of two newer FOBTs in 5841 subjects at average risk for colorectal cancer in a large group-model managed care organization. The tests evaluated included a sensitive GT, a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and the combination of both tests. Patients with positive and negative test results were advised to have colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for detecting advanced neoplasms in the left colon within 2 years after the FOBT screening were evaluated for the two tests administered separately and in combination. RESULTS: A total of 139 patients were diagnosed with advanced colorectal neoplasms (n = 14 cancers, n = 128 adenomas) within the 2 years following their initial FOBT screening. Sensitivity for detecting cancer was 81.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 47.8% to 96.8%) for the FIT alone and 64.3% (95% CI = 35.6% to 86.0%) for the sensitive GT and the combination test. Sensitivity for detecting advanced colorectal adenomas was 41.3% (95% CI = 32.7% to 50.4%) for the sensitive GT, 29.5% (95% CI = 21.4% to 38.9%) for the FIT, and 22.8% (95% CI =16.1% to 31.3%) for the combination test. Specificity for detecting cancer and adenomas was 98.1% (95% CI = 97.7% to 98.4%) and 98.4% (95% CI = 98.0% to 98.7%), respectively, for the combination test; 96.9% (95% CI = 96.4% to 97.4%) and 97.3% (95% CI = 96.8% to 97.7%), respectively, for the FIT; and 90.1% (95% CI = 89.3% to 90.8%) and 90.6% (95% CI = 89.8% to 91.4%), respectively, for the sensitive GT. CONCLUSIONS: The FIT has high sensitivity and specificity for detecting left-sided colorectal cancer, and it may be a useful replacement for the GT.

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 · 10.1093/jnci/djm150

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 372

Metadata

Authors
Allison, J. E., Sakoda, L. C., Levin, T. R., Tucker, J. P., Tekawa, I. S., Cuff, T., Pauly, M. P., Shlager, L., Palitz, A. M., Zhao, W. K., Schwartz, J. S., Ransohoff, D. F., & Selby, J. V.
Venue
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2007-09-25
Volume
99
Issue
19
Pages
1462-1470
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2147183147
Cited by
372
References
1
FWCI
14.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Screening for Colorectal Neoplasms With New Fecal Occult Blood Tests: Update on Performance Characteristics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djm150
The paper
Allison, J. E., Sakoda, L. C., Levin, T. R., Tucker, J. P., Tekawa, I. S., Cuff, T., Pauly, M. P., Shlager, L., Palitz, A. M., Zhao, W. K., Schwartz, J. S., Ransohoff, D. F., & Selby, J. V. (2007). Screening for Colorectal Neoplasms With New Fecal Occult Blood Tests: Update on Performance Characteristics. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djm150

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.