Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for hemoglobin (Hb) are increasingly used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We aimed to review, summarize and compare reported diagnostic performance of various FITs. PubMed and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 24, 2017. Data on diagnostic performance of quantitative FITs, conducted in colonoscopy-controlled average-risk screening populations, were extracted. Summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted and correlations between thresholds, positivity rates (PRs), sensitivities and specificities were assessed. Seven test brands were investigated across 22 studies. Although reported sensitivities for CRC, advanced adenoma (AA) and any advanced neoplasm (AN) varied widely (ranges: 25-100%, 6-44% and 9-60%, respectively), with specificities for AN ranging from 82% to 99%, the estimates were very close to the respective summary ROC curves whose areas under the curve (95% CI) were 0.905 (0.88-0.94), 0.683 (0.67-0.70) and 0.710 (0.70-0.72) for CRC, AA and AN, respectively. The seemingly large heterogeneity essentially reflected variations in test thresholds (range: 2-82 µg Hb/g feces) and showed moderate correlations with sensitivity (r = -0.49) and specificity (r = 0.60) for AN. By contrast, observed PRs (range: 1-21%) almost perfectly correlated with sensitivity (r = 0.84) and specificity (r = -0.94) for AN. The apparent large heterogeneity in diagnostic performance between various FITs can be almost completely overcome by appropriate threshold adjustments. Instead of simply applying the threshold recommended by the manufacturer, screening programs should adjust the threshold to yield a desired PR which is a very good proxy indicator for the specificity and the subsequent colonoscopy workload.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 12 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,984,047
of 24,464,848 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Cancer
#732
of 12,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,059
of 452,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Cancer
#13
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,464,848 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,075 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 452,599 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
