| Title |
Advances in Fecal Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11938-016-0076-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eline H. Schreuders, Esmée J. Grobbee, Manon C. W. Spaander, Ernst J. Kuipers |
| Abstract |
Colorectal cancer (CRC) forms an important public health problem, especially in developed countries. CRC screening tests can be used to identify asymptomatic individuals with CRC precursors and (early) cancer. Removal of these lesions reduces CRC incidence and prevents CRC-related mortality. There are a range of screening tests available, each with advantages and disadvantages. Stool screening tests can broadly be divided into fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) and molecular biomarker test, such as DNA/RNA marker tests, protein markers, and fecal microbiome marker tests. Guaiac fecal occult blood tests (gFOBT) have been demonstrated in large randomized screening trials to reduce CRC mortality. Fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) have superior adherence, usability, and accuracy as compared to gFOBT. Advantage of the use of quantitative FITs in CRC screening programs is the cut-off level that can be adjusted. Molecular biomarker DNA tests have shown to detect significantly more cancers than FIT. By combining biomarker DNA tests with FIT, sensitivity for advanced adenomas can be increased significantly. However, it has lower specificity thus demands more colonoscopy resources, is more cumbersome, and costly. The adherence has not been assessed in population screening trials. For these reasons, FIT is therefore at present regarded as the preferred method of non-invasive CRC screening. This chapter will review the current status of fecal test-based CRC screening. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 88 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 20% |
| Researcher | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 19% |
| Unknown | 19 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 35% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 21 | 24% |
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 31 January 2016.
All research outputs
#20,303,950
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology
#241
of 267 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#333,204
of 396,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 267 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 396,346 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.