Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 24, 2026

Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness and Safety of Shugan Jieyu Capsules for the Treatment of Insomnia
Published on: February 17, 2023
High-risk symptoms and quantitative faecal immunochemical test accuracy: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Noel Pin Vieito1, Sara Zarraquiños2, Joaquín Cubiella2
1Department of Gastroenterology, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense, Ourense 32005, Spain. noel.pin.vieito@sergas.es.
Background:
The quantitative faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin (FIT) has been revealed to be highly accurate for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection not only in a screening setting, but also in the assessment of patients presenting lower bowel symptoms. Therefore, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended the adoption of FIT in primary care to guide referral for suspected CRC in low-risk symptomatic patients using a 10 µg Hb/g faeces threshold. Nevertheless, it is unknown whether FIT´s accuracy remains stable throughout the broad spectrum of possible symptoms.
Aim:
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess FIT accuracy for CRC detection in different clinical settings.
Methods:
A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to May 2018 to conduct a meta-analysis of prospective studies including symptomatic patients that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative FIT for CRC detection. Studies were classified on the basis of brand, threshold of faecal haemoglobin concentration for a positive test result, percentage of reported symptoms (solely symptomatic, mixed cohorts) and CRC prevalence (< 2.5%, ≥ 2.5%) to limit heterogeneity and perform subgroup analysis to assess the influence of clinical spectrum on FIT´s accuracy to detect CRC.
Results:
Fifteen cohorts including 13073 patients (CRC prevalence 0.4% to 16.8%) were identified. Pooled estimates of sensitivity for studies using OC-Sensor at 10 µg Hb/g faeces threshold (n = 10400) was 89.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 82.7% to 94.0%). However, pooled estimates of sensitivity for studies formed solely by symptomatic patients (n = 4035) and mixed cohorts (n = 6365) were 94.1% (95%CI: 90.0% to 96.6%) and 85.5% (95%CI: 76.5% to 91.4%) respectively (P < 0.01), while there were no statistically significant differences between pooled sensitivity of studies with CRC prevalence < 2.5% (84.9%, 95%CI: 73.4% to 92.0%) and ≥ 2.5% (91.7%, 95%CI: 83.3% to 96.1%) (P = 0.25). At the same threshold, OC-Sensor® sensitivity to rule out any significant colonic lesion was 78.6% (95%CI: 75.6% to 81.4%). We found substantial heterogeneity especially when assessing specificity.
Conclusion:
The results of this meta-analysis confirm that, regardless of CRC prevalence, quantitative FIT is highly sensitive for CRC detection. However, FIT ability to rule out CRC is higher in studies solely including symptomatic patients.
More Related Videos
08:36Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
05:52Handwriting Analysis Indicates Spontaneous Dyskinesias in Neuroleptic Naïve Adolescents at High Risk for Psychosis
Published on: November 21, 2013
Related Concept Videos
Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision
Improving Translational Accuracy
Review and Preview
Percentiles are a type of fractile that partition data into...
Review and Preview
Quantitative Analysis
In quantitative analysis, two key measurements are made: the sample quantity and a property proportional to the amount of the analyte (the substance being analyzed). This forms the basis of the...
Accuracy and Precision