19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in patients with signs or symptoms of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC): a joint guideline from the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)

      other

      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

          Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) has a high sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC). In a symptomatic population FIT may identify those patients who require colorectal investigation with the highest priority. FIT offers considerable advantages over the use of symptoms alone, as an objective measure of risk with a vastly superior positive predictive value for CRC, while conversely identifying a truly low risk cohort of patients. The aim of this guideline was to provide a clear strategy for the use of FIT in the diagnostic pathway of people with signs or symptoms of a suspected diagnosis of CRC. The guideline was jointly developed by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/British Society of Gastroenterology, specifically by a 21-member multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG). A systematic review of 13 535 publications was undertaken to develop 23 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the triage of people with symptoms of a suspected CRC diagnosis in primary care. In order to achieve consensus among a broad group of key stakeholders, we completed an extended Delphi of the GDG, and also 61 other individuals across the UK and Ireland, including by members of the public, charities and primary and secondary care. Seventeen research recommendations were also prioritised to inform clinical management.

          Related collections

          Most cited references143

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

          Colorectal cancer statistics, 2017.

          Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in the United States. Every 3 years, the American Cancer Society provides an update of CRC incidence, survival, and mortality rates and trends. Incidence data through 2013 were provided by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, the National Program of Cancer Registries, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data through 2014 were provided by the National Center for Health Statistics. CRC incidence rates are highest in Alaska Natives and blacks and lowest in Asian/Pacific Islanders, and they are 30% to 40% higher in men than in women. Recent temporal patterns are generally similar by race and sex, but differ by age. Between 2000 and 2013, incidence rates in adults aged ≥50 years declined by 32%, with the drop largest for distal tumors in people aged ≥65 years (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.50; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.48-0.52) and smallest for rectal tumors in ages 50 to 64 years (male IRR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.96; female IRR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.08). Overall CRC incidence in individuals ages ≥50 years declined from 2009 to 2013 in every state except Arkansas, with the decrease exceeding 5% annually in 7 states; however, rectal tumor incidence in those ages 50 to 64 years was stable in most states. Among adults aged <50 years, CRC incidence rates increased by 22% from 2000 to 2013, driven solely by tumors in the distal colon (IRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.13-1.35) and rectum (IRR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.13-1.31). Similar to incidence patterns, CRC death rates decreased by 34% among individuals aged ≥50 years during 2000 through 2014, but increased by 13% in those aged <50 years. Progress against CRC can be accelerated by increasing initiation of screening at age 50 years (average risk) or earlier (eg, family history of CRC/advanced adenomas) and eliminating disparities in high-quality treatment. In addition, research is needed to elucidate causes for increasing CRC in young adults. CA Cancer J Clin 2017. © 2017 American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:177-193. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Using and Reporting the Delphi Method for Selecting Healthcare Quality Indicators: A Systematic Review

              Objective Delphi technique is a structured process commonly used to developed healthcare quality indicators, but there is a little recommendation for researchers who wish to use it. This study aimed 1) to describe reporting of the Delphi method to develop quality indicators, 2) to discuss specific methodological skills for quality indicators selection 3) to give guidance about this practice. Methodology and Main Finding Three electronic data bases were searched over a 30 years period (1978–2009). All articles that used the Delphi method to select quality indicators were identified. A standardized data extraction form was developed. Four domains (questionnaire preparation, expert panel, progress of the survey and Delphi results) were assessed. Of 80 included studies, quality of reporting varied significantly between items (9% for year's number of experience of the experts to 98% for the type of Delphi used). Reporting of methodological aspects needed to evaluate the reliability of the survey was insufficient: only 39% (31/80) of studies reported response rates for all rounds, 60% (48/80) that feedback was given between rounds, 77% (62/80) the method used to achieve consensus and 57% (48/80) listed quality indicators selected at the end of the survey. A modified Delphi procedure was used in 49/78 (63%) with a physical meeting of the panel members, usually between Delphi rounds. Median number of panel members was 17(Q1:11; Q3:31). In 40/70 (57%) studies, the panel included multiple stakeholders, who were healthcare professionals in 95% (38/40) of cases. Among 75 studies describing criteria to select quality indicators, 28 (37%) used validity and 17(23%) feasibility. Conclusion The use and reporting of the Delphi method for quality indicators selection need to be improved. We provide some guidance to the investigators to improve the using and reporting of the method in future surveys.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Gut
                Gut
                gutjnl
                gut
                Gut
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0017-5749
                1468-3288
                October 2022
                12 July 2022
                : 71
                : 10
                : 1939-1962
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentThe Wolfson Endoscopy Unit, Gastroenterology Department , St Mark's Hospital and Academic Institute , Harrow, London, UK
                [2 ] departmentFaculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery & Cancer , Imperial College , London, UK
                [3 ] departmentDepartment of Colorectal Surgery , University Hospital of Wales , Cardiff, UK
                [4 ] departmentColorectal Surgery , Croydon Health Services NHS Trust , Croydon, Greater London, UK
                [5 ] departmentNottingham Colorectal Service , Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust , Nottingham, UK
                [6 ] departmentDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences , University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [7 ] departmentUniversity of Warwick , Clinical Sciences Research Institute , Coventry, UK
                [8 ] departmentGastroenterology Department , University Hospital Coventry , Coventry, UK
                [9 ] Patient Representative , London, UK
                [10 ] departmentHub Director, NHS Bowel Cancer Screening South of England Hub , Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust , Guildford, Surrey, UK
                [11 ] departmentColorectal Surgery , Croydon University Hospital , Croydon, UK
                [12 ] departmentRadiology , St Mark's Hospital and Academic Institute , Harrow, London, UK
                [13 ] departmentColorectal Surgery , Croydon University Hospital , Croydon, London, UK
                [14 ] departmentGeneral Surgery , Wessex Deanery , Winchester, UK
                [15 ] departmentTranslational Gastroenterology Unit , Univerity of Oxford Nuffield Department of Medicine , Oxford, UK
                [16 ] departmentGastroenterology , Mayo Clinic Healthcare , London, UK
                [17 ] Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd , York, North Yorkshire, UK
                [18 ] departmentColorectal Surgery , Whipps Cross Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust , London, UK
                [19 ] departmentColorectal Surgery , Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust , Nottingham, UK
                [20 ] departmentGeneral Practice , Oak Lodge Medical Centre , London, UK
                [21 ] departmentPopulation Health Sciences Institute , Newcastle University , Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [22 ] University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust , Leicester, UK
                [23 ] departmentSurgery and Oncology Department , University of Dundee , Dundee, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Kevin J Monahan, The Wolfson Endoscopy Unit, Gastroenterology Department, St Mark's Hospital and Academic Institute, Harrow HA1 3UJ, London, UK; k.monahan@ 123456imperial.ac.uk ; Mr Michael M Davies; Michael.Davies5@ 123456Wales.nhs.uk

                KJM and MMD are joint first authors.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7918-4003
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0661-7362
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2231-3062
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9614-6113
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8035-3700
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9515-1722
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4248-6785
                Article
                gutjnl-2022-327985
                10.1136/gutjnl-2022-327985
                9484376
                35820780
                405657f2-261e-45a5-84ed-8bb71650ea3f
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 01 June 2022
                : 01 July 2022
                Categories
                Guidelines
                1506
                2312
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                colorectal cancer,stool markers,anemia,colorectal surgery,colonoscopy

                Comments

                Comment on this article