Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 162

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

A Proposal to Standardize Reporting Units for Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Hemoglobin

Fraser, C. G., Allison, J. E., Halloran, S. P., Young, G. P., on behalf of the Expert Working Group on Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Hemoglobin, Colorectal Cancer Screening Committee, World Endoscopy Organization·2012·JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

Fecal immunochemical tests for hemoglobin are replacing traditional guaiac fecal occult blood tests in population screening programs for many reasons. However, the many available fecal immunochemical test devices use a range of sampling methods, differ with regard to hemoglobin stability, and report hemoglobin concentrations in different ways. The methods for sampling, the mass of feces collected, and the volume and characteristics of the buffer used in the sampling device also vary among fecal immunochemical tests, making comparisons of test performance characteristics difficult. Fecal immunochemical test results may be expressed as the hemoglobin concentration in the sampling device buffer and, sometimes, albeit rarely, as the hemoglobin concentration per mass of feces. The current lack of consistency in units for reporting hemoglobin concentration is particularly problematic because apparently similar hemoglobin concentrations obtained with different devices can lead to very different clinical interpretations. Consistent adoption of an internationally accepted method for reporting results would facilitate comparisons of outcomes from these tests. We propose a simple strategy for reporting fecal hemoglobin concentration that will facilitate the comparison of results between fecal immunochemical test devices and across clinical studies. Such reporting is readily achieved by defining the mass of feces sampled and the volume of sample buffer (with confidence intervals) and expressing results as micrograms of hemoglobin per gram of feces. We propose that manufacturers of fecal immunochemical tests provide this information and that the authors of research articles, guidelines, and policy articles, as well as pathology services and regulatory bodies, adopt this metric when reporting fecal immunochemical test results.

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/djs190

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 162

Metadata

Authors
Fraser, C. G., Allison, J. E., Halloran, S. P., Young, G. P., & on behalf of the Expert Working Group on Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Hemoglobin, C. C. S. C.
Venue
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2012-04-02
Volume
104
Issue
11
Pages
810-814
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2159239310
Cited by
162
References
1
FWCI
6.96
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: A Proposal to Standardize Reporting Units for Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Hemoglobin. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djs190
The paper
Fraser, C. G., Allison, J. E., Halloran, S. P., Young, G. P., & on behalf of the Expert Working Group on Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Hemoglobin, C. C. S. C. (2012). A Proposal to Standardize Reporting Units for Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Hemoglobin. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djs190

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.