The compliance rate for the second diagnostic evaluation after a positive fecal occult blood test: A systematic review and meta-analysis

31Citations
Citations of this article
47Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Introduction: Only a minority of patients with a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) undergo a follow-up second diagnostic procedure, thus minimizing its contribution for colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. We aimed to obtain a precise estimation of this problem and also assess the diagnostic yield of CRC and adenomas by colonoscopy in these patients. Methods: Literature searches were conducted for “compliance” OR “adherence” AND “fecal occult blood test” OR “fecal immunohistochemical test” AND “colonoscopy.” Comprehensive meta-analysis software was used. Results: The search resulted in 42 studies (512,496 patients with positive FOBT), published through December 31, 2017. A funnel plot demonstrates a moderate publication bias. Compliance with any second procedure, colonoscopy, or combination of double-contrast barium enema with or without sigmoidoscopy in patients with a positive FOBT was 0.725 with 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.649–0.790 (p = 0.000), 0.804 with 95% CI 0.740–0.856 (p = 0.000) and 0.197 with 95% CI 0.096–0.361 (p = 0.000), respectively. The diagnostic yield for CRC, advanced adenoma and simple adenoma was 0.058 with 95% CI 0.050–0.068 (p = 0.000), 0.242 with 95% CI 0.188–0.306 (p = 0.000) and 0.147 with 95% CI 0.116–0.184 (p < 0.001), respectively. Discussion: Compliance with diagnostic evaluation after a positive FOBT is still suboptimal. Therefore, measures to increase compliance need to be taken given the increased risk of CRC in these patients.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gingold-Belfer, R., Leibovitzh, H., Boltin, D., Issa, N., Tsadok Perets, T., Dickman, R., & Niv, Y. (2019). The compliance rate for the second diagnostic evaluation after a positive fecal occult blood test: A systematic review and meta-analysis. United European Gastroenterology Journal, 7(3), 424–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050640619828185

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free