Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 165

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Randomised Trial of the Impact of New Faecal Haemoglobin Test Technologies on Population Participation in Screening for Colorectal Cancer

Open access
Cole, S R, Young, G P, Esterman, A, Cadd, B, Morcom, J·2003·Journal of Medical Screening

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect on participation in colorectal cancer screening of testing for blood products in faeces using technologies that remove dietary restrictions (i.e. immunochemical tests) and simplify faecal sampling (i.e. tests that use brush sampling). SETTING: Urban residents (n=1818) of Adelaide, Australia, aged between 50 and 69 years, randomly selected from the electoral roll. DESIGN: Three randomised cohorts of 606 invitees were offered a screening test by mail in 2001. The Hemoccult SENSA and FlexSure OBT cohorts were instructed to sample three stools using a spatula while the InSureTM cohort sampled two stools using a brush. The Hemoccult SENSA cohort was asked to restrict certain (high-peroxidase) foods and drugs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participation (i.e. return of completed sample kits within 12 weeks) and generalised linear modelling (GLM) of relationships between participation, test technologies and demographic variables. RESULTS: Participation was 23.4%, 30.5% and 39.6% for the Hemoccult, FlexSure and InSure cohorts, respectively (chi(2)=37.1, p<0.00001). GLM demonstrated that participation was increased by 28% by removal of restrictions (p=0.01) and by 30% by simplification of sampling (p=0.001); both together increased participation by 66% (p<0.001). The differences in participation between tests occurred in the first three weeks. Socio-economic status, gender or age did not significantly influence technology-based improvements in participation. CONCLUSIONS: The brush-sampling faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin (InSure) achieves the best participation rates by simplifying sampling and removing the need for restrictions of diet and drugs. Because participation in screening is vital to detection, this new technology should contribute to better detection of neoplasia at the population level.

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 · 10.1177/096914130301000304

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.

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

Cited by

See all 165

Metadata

Authors
Cole, S. R., Young, G. P., Esterman, A., Cadd, B., & Morcom, J.
Venue
Journal of Medical Screening
Published
2003-09
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
117-122
ISSN
  • 0969-1413 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-5793
OpenAlex
W2165506687
Cited by
165
References
0
FWCI
3.18
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 Randomised Trial of the Impact of New Faecal Haemoglobin Test Technologies on Population Participation in Screening for Colorectal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/096914130301000304
The paper
Cole, S. R., Young, G. P., Esterman, A., Cadd, B., & Morcom, J. (2003). A Randomised Trial of the Impact of New Faecal Haemoglobin Test Technologies on Population Participation in Screening for Colorectal Cancer. Journal of Medical Screening. https://doi.org/10.1177/096914130301000304

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.