The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of a guaiac based and an immunochemical faecal occult blood test in screening for colorectal cancer in a general average risk population
Open accessAbstract
Background: The guaiac faecal occult blood test (G-FOBT) is recommended as a screening test for colorectal cancer but its low sensitivity has prevented its use throughout the world. Methods: We compared the performances of the reference G-FOBT (non-rehydrated Hemoccult II test) and the immunochemical faecal occult blood test (I-FOBT) using different positivity cut-off values in an average risk population sample of 10 673 patients who completed the two tests. Patients with at least one test positive were asked to undergo colonoscopy. Results: Using the usual cut-off point of 20 ng/ml haemoglobin, the gain in sensitivity associated with the use of I-FOBT (50% increase for cancer and 256% increase for high risk adenoma) was balanced by a decrease in specificity. The number of extra false positive results associated with the detection of one extra advanced neoplasia (cancer or high risk adenoma) was 2.17 (95% confidence interval 1.65–2.85). With a threshold of 50 ng/ml, I-FOBT detected more than twice as many advanced neoplasias as the G-FOBT (ratio of sensitivity = 2.33) without any loss in specificity (ratio of false positive rate = 0.99). With a threshold of 75 ng/ml, associated with a similar positivity rate to G-FOBT (2.4%), the use of I-FOBT allowed a gain in sensitivity of 90% and a decrease in the false positive rate of 33% for advanced neoplasia. Conclusions: Evidence in favour of the substitution of G-FOBT by I-FOBT is increasing, the gain being more important for high risk adenomas than for cancers. The automated reading technology allows choice of the positivity rate associated with an ideal balance between sensitivity and specificity.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
van Rossum, L. G., van Rijn, A. F., Laheij, R. J., van Oijen, M. G., Fockens, P., van Krieken, H. H., Verbeek, A. L., Jansen, J. B., & Dekker, E. (2008) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2008.03.040 · Cited by 734
Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening – An overview
Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I., Knudsen, A. B., & Brenner, H. (2010) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/j.bpg.2010.04.004 · Cited by 438
Graser, A., Stieber, P., Nagel, D., Schafer, C., Horst, D., Becker, C. R., Nikolaou, K., Lottes, A., Geisbusch, S., Kramer, H., et al. (2009) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2008.156448 · Cited by 389
Zorzi, M., Fedeli, U., Schievano, E., Bovo, E., Guzzinati, S., Baracco, S., Fedato, C., Saugo, M., & Dei Tos, A. P. (2015) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307508 · Cited by 302
A mountable toilet system for personalized health monitoring via the analysis of excreta
Park, S.-M., Won, D. D., Lee, B. J., Escobedo, D., Esteva, A., Aalipour, A., Ge, T. J., Kim, J. H., Suh, S., Choi, E. H., et al. (2020) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-020-0534-9 · Cited by 175
Metadata
- Authors
- Guittet, L., Bouvier, V, Mariotte, N., Vallee, J. P., Arsène, D., Boutreux, S., Tichet, J., & Launoy, G.
- Venue
- Gut
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2006-08-04
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 210-214
- ISSN
- 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3288
- OpenAlex
- W2169428269
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.23
- 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: Comparison of a guaiac based and an immunochemical faecal occult blood test in screening for colorectal cancer in a general average risk population. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.2006.101428
- The paper
- Guittet, L., Bouvier, V, Mariotte, N., Vallee, J. P., Arsène, D., Boutreux, S., Tichet, J., & Launoy, G. (2007). Comparison of a guaiac based and an immunochemical faecal occult blood test in screening for colorectal cancer in a general average risk population. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2006.101428
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.