Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 May;115(5):662-670.
doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000495.

Use of Fecal Occult Blood Testing as a Diagnostic Tool for Clinical Indications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Mindy Winghin Lee  1 , Jonathan S Pourmorady  1 , Loren Laine  1   2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Use of Fecal Occult Blood Testing as a Diagnostic Tool for Clinical Indications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Mindy Winghin Lee et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 May.

Abstract

Introduction: Fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) are validated only for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but are commonly used as a diagnostic test in other clinical settings. We performed a systematic review to assess performance characteristics of FOBT as a diagnostic test for clinical indications.

Methods: Bibliographic databases were searched to identify studies in adult patients with a specific gastrointestinal symptom or condition who underwent FOBT and a reference test and provided data on diagnoses. Our primary end point was sensitivity. Risk of bias was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool.

Results: Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria: 12 in iron deficiency anemia (IDA) (5 fecal immunochemical (FIT) and 7 guaiac based), 8 in ulcerative colitis (FIT), and 2 in acute diarrhea (guaiac based). Only 2 studies had low risk of bias on all domains of the QUADAS-2. On meta-analysis, FOBT had a sensitivity of 0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.63) and a specificity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.75-0.89) in predicting presumptive causes of IDA at endoscopy, with comparable results for guaiac-based tests and FIT. Sensitivity was higher for CRC (0.83) than non-CRC lesions (0.54). FIT had a sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI 0.57-0.84) and a specificity of 0.80 (95% CI 0.67-0.89) in predicting endoscopic activity in UC. Sensitivities of FOBT for positive stool culture in acute diarrhea were 0.38 and 0.87.

Discussion: Sensitivity of FOBT is poor for IDA: 42% of patients with identifiable causes of IDA had false-negative FOBT. Our results did not show acceptable performance characteristics for FOBT to guide decisions regarding endoscopic evaluation and do not support its use in IDA.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: Recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2017;112:1016–30.
    1. Raju GS, Gerson L, Das A, et al. American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute technical review of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Gastroenterology 2007;133:1697–717.
    1. Dube C. Putting an end to the misuse of the fecal occult blood test in diagnostic medicine. Can J Gastroenterol 2013;27:695.
    1. Peacock O, Watts ES, Hanna N, et al. Inappropriate use of the faecal occult blood test outside of the National Health Service colorectal cancer screening programme. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;24:1270–5.
    1. Sharma VK, Vasudeva R, Howden CW. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance practices by primary care physicians: Results of a national survey. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95:1551–6.

MeSH terms