↓ Skip to main content

Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) can help to rule out colorectal cancer in patients presenting in primary care with lower abdominal symptoms: a systematic review conducted to inform new NICE DG30…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) can help to rule out colorectal cancer in patients presenting in primary care with lower abdominal symptoms: a systematic review conducted to inform new NICE DG30 diagnostic guidance
Published in
BMC Medicine, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0944-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie Westwood, Shona Lang, Nigel Armstrong, Sietze van Turenhout, Joaquín Cubiella, Lisa Stirk, Isaac Corro Ramos, Marianne Luyendijk, Remziye Zaim, Jos Kleijnen, Callum G. Fraser

Abstract

This study has attempted to assess the effectiveness of quantitative faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) for triage of people presenting with lower abdominal symptoms, where a referral to secondary care for investigation of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) is being considered, particularly when the 2-week criteria are not met. We conducted a systematic review following published guidelines for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Twenty-one resources were searched up until March 2016. Summary estimates were calculated using a bivariate model or a random-effects logistic regression model. Nine studies are included in this review. One additional study, included in our systematic review, was provided as 'academic in confidence' and cannot be described herein. When FIT was based on a single faecal sample and a cut-off of 10 μg Hb/g faeces, sensitivity estimates indicated that a negative result using either the OC-Sensor or HM-JACKarc may be adequate to rule out nearly all CRC; the summary estimate of sensitivity for the OC-Sensor was 92.1% (95% confidence interval, CI 86.9-95.3%), based on four studies (n = 4091 participants, 176 with CRC), and the only study of HM-JACKarc to assess the 10 μg Hb/g faeces cut-off (n = 507 participants, 11 with CRC) reported a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 71.5-100%). The corresponding specificity estimates were 85.8% (95% CI 78.3-91.0%) and 76.6% (95% CI 72.6-80.3%), respectively. When the diagnostic criterion was changed to include lower grades of neoplasia, i.e. the target condition included higher risk adenoma (HRA) as well as CRC, the rule-out performance of both FIT assays was reduced. There is evidence to suggest that triage using FIT at a cut-off around 10 μg Hb/g faeces has the potential to correctly rule out CRC and avoid colonoscopy in 75-80% of symptomatic patients. PROSPERO 42016037723.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 13%
Other 17 12%
Student > Master 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 47 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 49 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,670,188
of 25,083,571 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,176
of 3,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,029
of 334,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#11
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,083,571 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,922 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.