The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Faecal immunochemical tests versus guaiac faecal occult blood tests: what clinicians and colorectal cancer screening programme organisers need to know
Abstract
Although colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common cause of cancer-related death, it is fortunately amenable to screening with faecal tests for occult blood and endoscopic tests. Despite the evidence for the efficacy of guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests (gFOBT), they have not been popular with primary care providers in many jurisdictions, in part because of poor sensitivity for advanced colorectal neoplasms (advanced adenomas and CRC). In order to address this issue, high sensitivity gFOBT have been recommended, however, these tests are limited by a reduction in specificity compared with the traditional gFOBT. Where colonoscopy is available, some providers have opted to recommend screening colonoscopy to their patients instead of faecal testing, as they believe it to be a better test. Newer methods for detecting occult human blood in faeces have been developed. These tests, called faecal immunochemical tests (FIT), are immunoassays specific for human haemoglobin. FIT hold considerable promise over the traditional guaiac methods including improved analytical and clinical sensitivity for CRC, better detection of advanced adenomas, and greater screenee participation. In addition, the quantitative FIT are more flexible than gFOBT as a numerical result is reported, allowing customisation of the positivity threshold. When compared with endoscopy, FIT are less sensitive for the detection of advanced colorectal neoplasms when only one time testing is applied to a screening population; however, this is offset by improved participation in a programme of annual or biennial screens and a better safety profile. This review will describe how gFOBT and FIT work and will present the evidence that supports the use of FIT over gFOBT, including the cost-effectiveness of FIT relative to gFOBT. Finally, specific issues related to FIT implementation will be discussed, particularly with respect to organised CRC screening programmes.
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
Cites
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
Cited by
Colorectal cancer population screening programs worldwide in 2016: An update
Navarro, M., Nicolas, A., Ferrandez, A., & Lanas, A. (2017) · World Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.3748/wjg.v23.i20.3632 · Cited by 611
Dysbiosis of human gut microbiome in young-onset colorectal cancer
Yang, Y., Du, L., Shi, D., Kong, C., Liu, J., Liu, G., Li, X., & Ma, Y. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27112-y · Cited by 303
Diagnostics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer
Kolligs, F. T. (2016) · Visceral Medicine · doi:10.1159/000446488 · Cited by 223
Optimizing the quality of colorectal cancer screening worldwide
Kaminski, M. F., Robertson, D. J., Senore, C., & Rex, D. K. (2020) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2019.11.026 · Cited by 171
Metadata
- Authors
- Tinmouth, J., Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I., & Allison, J. E.
- Venue
- Gut
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2015-06-03
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1327-1337
- ISSN
- 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3288
- OpenAlex
- W2283507024
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.45
- 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: Faecal immunochemical tests versus guaiac faecal occult blood tests: what clinicians and colorectal cancer screening programme organisers need to know. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308074
- The paper
- Tinmouth, J., Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I., & Allison, J. E. (2015). Faecal immunochemical tests versus guaiac faecal occult blood tests: what clinicians and colorectal cancer screening programme organisers need to know. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308074
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.