| Title |
Sex is a stronger predictor of colorectal adenoma and advanced adenoma than fecal occult blood test
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical Oncology, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12032-014-0151-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Monika Ferlitsch, Georg Heinze, Petra Salzl, Martha Britto-Arias, Elisabeth Waldmann, Karoline Reinhart, Christina Bannert, Elisabeth Fasching, Peter Knoflach, Werner Weiss, Michael Trauner, Arnulf Ferlitsch |
| Abstract |
Due to high costs and limited availability of screening colonoscopy, some screening programs require a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) before screening colonoscopy is remunerated. As male sex is a strong predictor of adenoma and advanced adenoma, we evaluated whether a positive FOBT or male sex is a stronger risk factor for adenoma and advanced adenoma. FOBT and screening colonoscopy results from 18.665 consecutive patients participating in a "national health check program" between 2009 and 2011 were included in this cohort study. Age-corrected adenoma detection rates (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rates (AADR) and carcinoma detection rates were calculated for men and women according to FOBT result separately. ADR and AADR in FOBT-positive men (34.6 and 11.8 %) and FOBT-negative men (29.1 and 7.6 %) were higher than ADR and AADR in FOBT-positive women (20 and 6.9 %) and in FOBT-negative women (17.6 and 4.4 %), (p = 0.0003). Men with negative FOBT were at higher risk of having an adenoma and advanced adenoma than women with positive FOBT (p < 0.0001). Odds ratios of a positive FOBT for ADR and AADR were 1.3 (1.1-1.5) (p = 0.0047) and 1.6 (1.2-2.1) (p < 0.0001), respectively. Odds ratios of male sex to predict ADR and AADR were significantly higher with 1.9 (1.8-2.1) and 1.8 (1.6-2), respectively (p < 0.001). Male sex is a stronger predictor for colorectal adenoma and advanced adenoma than positive FOBT. These results should be taken into account analyzing FOBT-based screening programs. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 17% |
| Researcher | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Librarian | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 33% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 10 March 2015.
All research outputs
#4,172,589
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Medical Oncology
#88
of 1,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,809
of 231,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Oncology
#1
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,291 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 231,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.