| Title |
The sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios of fecal occult blood test for the detection of colorectal cancer in hospital settings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ceg.s86419 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Salah H Elsafi, Norah I Alqahtani, Nawaf Y Zakary, Eidan M Al Zahrani |
| Abstract |
To study the performance of a single test using two fecal occult blood tests with colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) for the first time in Saudi Arabia to determine possible implications for the anticipated colorectal screening program. We compared the performance of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for the detection of CRC among patients of 50-74 years old attending two hospitals in the Eastern Region of Saudi Arabia. Samples of feces were collected from 257 asymptomatic patients and 20 cases of confirmed CRC, and they were tested simultaneously by the guaiac-based occult blood test and monoclonal antibody-based immunoassay kit. Colonoscopy was performed on all participants and the results were statistically analyzed with both positive and negative occult blood tests of both methods. Of the 277 subjects, 79 tested positive for occult blood with at least one method. Overall, the number of those with an occult blood-positive result by both tests was 39 (14.1%), while for 198 (71.5%), both tests were negative (P<0.0001); 40 (14.4%) samples showed a discrepant result. Colonoscopy data were obtained for all 277 patients. A total of three invasive cancers were detected among the screening group. Of the three, the guaiac test detected two cases, while the immunochemical test detected three of them. Of the 20 control cases, the guaiac test detected 13 CRC cases (P=0.03), while the immunochemical test detected 16 of them (P<0.0001). The sensitivity of guaiac and immunochemical tests for the detection of CRC in the screening group was 50.00% (95% confidence interval [CI] =6.76-93.24) and 75.00% (95% CI =19.41-99.37), respectively. For comparison, the sensitivity of the guaiac fecal occult blood test for detecting CRC among the control group was 65.00% (95% CI =40.78-84.61) while that of FIT was 80.00% (95% CI =56.34-94.27). The specificity of the guaiac and immunoassay tests was 77.87% (95% CI =72.24-82.83) and 90.12% (95% CI =85.76-93.50), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio of guaiac and immunochemical tests for the detection of CRC was 2.26 (95% CI =0.83-6.18) and 7.59 (95% CI =3.86-14.94), whereas the negative likelihood ratio was 0.64 (95% CI =0.24-1.71) and 0.28 (95% CI =0.05-1.52), respectively. The positive predictive values of guaiac and immunochemical tests were 3.45% (95% CI =0.426-11.91) and 10.71% (95% CI =2.27-28.23), respectively. There was no marked difference in the negative predictive values for both methods. The sensitivity of the fecal occult blood test by FIT was significantly higher for stages III and IV colorectal cancer than for stages I and II (P=0.01) and it was insignificant for the guaiac fecal occult blood test (P=0.07). In areas where other advance screening methods of CRC are not feasible, the use of FIT can be considered. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 123 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 15% |
| Researcher | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 23 | 19% |
| Unknown | 38 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 15 | 12% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 3% |
| Engineering | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 11% |
| Unknown | 41 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 July 2021.
All research outputs
#18,426,826
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#220
of 306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,487
of 266,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 266,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.