Literature DB >> 2242119

Is there a preference for different ways of performing faecal occult blood tests?

J D Kettner1, C Whatrup, J E Verne, K Young, C B Williams, J M Northover.   

Abstract

Low compliance with faecal occult blood screening reduces the power of clinical trials, potential benefit, and efficiency. It has been proposed that the faecal manipulation required to perform conventional guaiac based tests may be an important factor in low compliance. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether use of a new method (vehicle) of stool collection for the faecal occult blood guaiac test would be preferred to the established standard. A novel self-interpreted test, Early Detector (ED), requires the subject to apply a guaiac/peroxide spray to a stool sample collected simply by wiping the anus with a specimen pad. To determine whether this method would be preferred to the stool manipulation required by Haemoccult (HO) and to compare test validity, employees at a London company were invited to use both tests. Eight-hundred and fifty-seven subjects were shown both tests. Before use, 48% indicated a preference for the method of Early Detector; 24% chose Haemoccult (p less than 0.001), while 28% indicated no immediate preference. Seven-hundred and one performed both tests. After use, 74% preferred ED; 5% preferred HO (p less than 0.001); 21% had no preference (NP). The preference for the ED test method was consistent by sex categories, age groups and occupational class. Logistics, aesthetics, and immediacy of results were the main reasons indicated for choosing ED. Whether the preference for ED could result in higher compliance remains to be proven. Its high positivity (14%), however, would preclude its use as a sole test to determine the need for endoscopic and/or radiologic investigation in the screened patient.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2242119     DOI: 10.1007/bf00298474

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 0179-1958            Impact factor:   2.571


  14 in total

1.  Haemoccult compliance rates and reasons for non-compliance.

Authors:  V Box; S Nichols; R C Lallemand; P Pearson; P A Vakil
Journal:  Public Health       Date:  1984-01       Impact factor: 2.427

Review 2.  The pros and cons of fecal occult blood testing for colorectal neoplasms.

Authors:  J B Simon
Journal:  Cancer Metastasis Rev       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 9.264

Review 3.  Colorectal carcinoma and Haemoccult. A study of its value in mass screening using meta-analysis.

Authors:  J Windeler; J Köbberling
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  1987-11       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  The coloscreen self-test for detection of fecal occult blood.

Authors:  W M Rodney; C Ruggiero
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1985-09       Impact factor: 0.493

5.  Predicting colon cancer screening behavior from health beliefs.

Authors:  F A Macrae; D J Hill; D J St John; A Ambikapathy; J F Garner
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1984-01       Impact factor: 4.018

6.  Initial mass screening for colorectal cancer with fecal occult blood test. A prospective randomized study at Funen in Denmark.

Authors:  O Kronborg; C Fenger; O Søndergaard; K M Pedersen; J Olsen
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 2.423

7.  Basic issues in population screening for cancer.

Authors:  P Cole; A S Morrison
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1980-05       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Screening for colorectal cancer: the rationale and a recent advance in the detection of fecal occult blood.

Authors:  W G Friend
Journal:  Prog Clin Biol Res       Date:  1985

9.  Progress report on controlled trial of fecal occult blood testing for the detection of colorectal neoplasia.

Authors:  S J Winawer; M Andrews; B Flehinger; P Sherlock; D Schottenfeld; D G Miller
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1980-06-15       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  A comparison of an immunological faecal occult blood test Fecatwin sensitive/FECA EIA with Haemoccult in population screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  N Armitage; J D Hardcastle; S S Amar; T W Balfour; J Haynes; P D James
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.