31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Value of symptoms and additional diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective To summarise available evidence on diagnostic tests that might help primary care physicians to identify patients with an increased risk for colorectal cancer among those consulting for non-acute lower abdominal symptoms.

          Data sources PubMed, Embase, and reference screening.

          Study eligibility criteria Studies were selected if the design was a diagnostic study; the patients were adults consulting because of non-acute lower abdominal symptoms; tests included signs, symptoms, blood tests, or faecal tests.

          Study appraisal and synthesis methods Two reviewers independently assessed quality with a modified version of the QUADAS tool and extracted data. We present diagnostic two by two tables and pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. We refrained from pooling when there was considerable clinical or statistical heterogeneity.

          Results 47 primary diagnostic studies were included. Sensitivity was consistently high for age ≥50 (range 0.81-0.96, median 0.91), a referral guideline (0.80-0.94, 0.92), and immunochemical faeces tests (0.70-1.00, 0.95). Of these, only specificity of the faeces tests was good. Specificity was consistently high for family history (0.75-0.98, 0.91), weight loss (0.72-0.96, 0.89), and iron deficiency anaemia (0.83-0.95, 0.92), but all tests lacked sensitivity. None of these six tests was (sufficiently) studied in primary care.

          Conclusions Although combinations of symptom and results of immunochemical faeces tests showed good diagnostic performance for colorectal cancer, evidence from primary care is lacking. High quality studies on their role in the diagnostic investigation of colorectal cancer in primary care are urgently needed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references62

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review.

          Studies of diagnostic accuracy are subject to different sources of bias and variation than studies that evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention. Little is known about the effects of these sources of bias and variation. To summarize the evidence on factors that can lead to bias or variation in the results of diagnostic accuracy studies. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and BIOSIS, and the methodologic databases of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Cochrane Collaboration. Methodologic experts in diagnostic tests were contacted. Studies that investigated the effects of bias and variation on measures of test performance were eligible for inclusion, which was assessed by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Data extraction was conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. The best-documented effects of bias and variation were found for demographic features, disease prevalence and severity, partial verification bias, clinical review bias, and observer and instrument variation. For other sources, such as distorted selection of participants, absent or inappropriate reference standard, differential verification bias, and review bias, the amount of evidence was limited. Evidence was lacking for other features, including incorporation bias, treatment paradox, arbitrary choice of threshold value, and dropouts. Many issues in the design and conduct of diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to bias or variation; however, the empirical evidence about the size and effect of these issues is limited.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            ASGE guideline: colorectal cancer screening and surveillance.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              An advance notification letter increases participation in colorectal cancer screening.

              To determine the impact of novel invitation strategies on population participation in faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. A community screening programme in Adelaide, South Australia. In total, 2400 people aged 50-74 years were randomly allocated to one of four CRC screening invitation strategies: (a) standard invitation-to-screen letter explaining risk of CRC and the concept, value and method of screening; (b) Risk: invitation with additional messages related to CRC risk; (c) Advocacy: invitation with additional messages related to advocacy for screening from previous screening programme participants and (d) Advance Notification: first, a letter introducing CONTROL letter messages followed by the standard invitation-to-screen. Invitations included an FIT kit. Programme participation rates were determined for each strategy relative to control. Associations between participation and sociodemographic variables were explored. At 12 weeks after invitation, participation was: 237/600 (39.5%); Risk: 242/600 (40.3%); Advocacy: 216/600 (36.0%) and Advance Notification: 290/600 (48.3%). Participation was significantly greater than CONTROL only in the Advance Notification group (Relative risk [RR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.43). This effect was apparent as early as two weeks from date of offer; Advance Notification: 151/600 (25.2%) versus 109/600 (18.2%, RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.11-1.73). Advance notification significantly increased screening participation. The effect may be due to a population shift in readiness to undertake screening, and is consistent with the Transtheoretical Model of behaviour change. Risk or lay advocacy strategies did not improve screening participation. Organized screening programmes should consider using advance notification letters to improve programme participation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: research fellow
                Role: professor in primary care epidemiology
                Role: senior researcher
                Role: senior lecturer in general practice
                Role: affiliated professor of gastroenterology
                Role: professor of gastroenterology
                Role: professor of clinimetrics
                Journal
                BMJ
                bmj
                BMJ : British Medical Journal
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1468-5833
                2010
                2010
                31 March 2010
                : 340
                : c1269
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of General Practice, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [2 ]Arthritis Research UK National Primary Care Centre, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG
                [3 ]Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam
                [4 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam
                [5 ]Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: H C W de Vet hcw.devet@ 123456vumc.nl
                Article
                jelp705053
                10.1136/bmj.c1269
                2848719
                20360221
                1416b498-2e52-48c9-8c2f-7c4af8e43553
                © Jellema et al 2010

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.

                History
                : 1 February 2010
                Categories
                Research
                General practice / family medicine
                Malnutrition
                Colon cancer
                Screening (oncology)
                Clinical diagnostic tests
                Screening (epidemiology)
                Internet
                Metabolic disorders
                Screening (public health)

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article