首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran >The effectiveness of FOBT vs. FIT: A meta-analysis on colorectal cancer screening test
【2h】

The effectiveness of FOBT vs. FIT: A meta-analysis on colorectal cancer screening test

机译:FOBT与FIT的有效性:大肠癌筛查测试的荟萃分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Background: After lung and prostate cancers, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in men and the second most common cancer in women after breast cancer worldwide. Every year, more than one million people are diagnosed with colorectal cancer worldwide and half of these patients die from this disease, making it the fourth leading cause of death in the world. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of the two colorectal diagnostic tests of FOBT (fecal occult blood test) and FIT (fecal immunochemical test)) in terms of technical performance. >Methods: To retrieve the relevant evidence, appropriate medical databases such as Cochrane library, NHSEED, Scopus and Google scholar were searched from February 2013 to July 2014, using free-texts and Mesh. In this study, inclusion/exclusion criteria of the papers, randomized controlled trials, economic evaluations, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and meta-syntheses of the effectiveness of FIT versus FOBT tests in moderate-risk populations (age: 50 to 70 years), which had reported the least of such outcomes as sensitivity, specificity and clinical outcomes were reviewed. The analyses of the effectiveness outcomes were performed in the form of meta-analysis. >Results: Five papers were eligible to be included in the final phase of the study for synthesis. FIT showed abetter performance in participation and positivity rate. Moreover, in terms of false positive and negative rate,FIT showed fewer rates compared to FOBT (RR:-4.06; 95% CI (-7.89-0.24), and NN-scope (Number need toscope) (2.2% vs. 1.6%), and NN-screen (Number need to screen) (84% vs. 31-49% in different cut off levels)showed significant differences in FOBT vs. FIT, respectively.>Conclusion: In the five included studies (3, 11-14), the acceptability of FIT was more than FOBT. However, inour meta-analysis, no difference was found between the two tests. FIT was significant in positivity rate and hada better performance in participation rate, and a fewer false negative numbers compared to FOBT.
机译:>背景:继肺癌和前列腺癌之后,结直肠癌(CRC)在世界范围内是仅次于乳腺癌的男性第三大癌症和女性第二大癌症。每年,全世界有超过一百万的人被诊断出患有结肠直肠癌,其中一半的人死于这种疾病,这使其成为世界上第四大死亡原因。该系统评价旨在评估技术性能方面的FOBT(粪便潜血试验)和FIT(粪便免疫化学试验)两种结肠直肠诊断试验的有效性。 >方法:为了检索相关证据,从2013年2月至2014年7月,使用自由文本和Mesh搜索了合适的医学数据库,例如Cochrane图书馆,NHSEED,Scopus和Google Scholar。在这项研究中,论文的纳入/排除标准,随机对照试验,经济评估,系统评价,FIT和FOBT测试在中度风险人群(年龄:50至70岁)中的有效性的荟萃分析和荟萃综合,其中报告了诸如敏感性,特异性和临床结果之类的最少结果。有效性结果的分析以荟萃分析的形式进行。 >结果:有五篇论文有资格被纳入综合研究的最后阶段。 FIT显示更好的参与和阳性率表现。此外,在误报率和误报率方面,与FOBT(RR:-4.06; 95%CI(-7.89-0.24))和NN-scope(数字需要范围)(2.2%和1.6%)和NN屏幕(需要屏蔽的数字)(84%vs. 31-49%在不同的截止水平)分别显示FOBT与FIT的显着差异。>结论:在包括在内的五项研究(3、11-14)中,FIT的接受度高于FOBT。但是,在在我们的荟萃分析中,两个测试之间没有发现差异。 FIT的阳性率显着,并且具有与FOBT相比,参与率表现更好,并且假阴性数更少。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号