| Title |
Accuracy of a fecal immunochemical test according to outside temperature and travel time
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Epidemiology, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/clep.s170169 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tobias Niedermaier, Korbinian Weigl, Anton Gies, Michael Hoffmeister, Hermann Brenner |
| Abstract |
Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are widely used and recommended for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Fecal hemoglobin (Hb) may degrade with long transport durations and high ambient temperatures, potentially reducing sensitivity to detect CRC and its precursors. This study aimed at investigating the impact of temperatures and sample travel times on diagnostic performance of a quantitative FIT for detection of advanced neoplasms (AN, CRC, or advanced adenoma). Participants of screening colonoscopy in south-western Germany conducted a quantitative FIT prior to bowel preparation between February 2012 and June 2016. From available locations and dates of stool sampling and transport, maximum ambient temperatures were linked to 2,870 participants aged 50-79 years and sample return durations were recorded. The impact of ambient temperatures and return duration on FIT sensitivity and specificity was assessed for five different cutoffs between 10 and 25 µg Hb/g feces. At a positivity threshold of 20 µg Hb/g feces, overall sensitivity and specificity for detecting any AN were 40% (95% CI, 35-47%) and 95% (95% CI, 94-96%), respectively. Inverse associations between maximum ambient temperature (median 18.1°C, inter-quartile range [IQR] =11.4-24.9°C) and sensitivity of FIT were observed which were stronger at higher cutoffs. Sample return durations (median 6 days, IQR =4-8 days) were not associated with variable sensitivities or specificities. Hb degredation during fecal sample transportation in summer months may be of some concern for diagnostic performance of the FIT evaluated under routine conditions in a middle-European climate. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Librarian | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 30% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,230,108
of 24,178,331 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#451
of 758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,259
of 339,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#19
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,178,331 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 758 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 339,314 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.