Risk factors for false positive and for false negative test results in screening with fecal occult blood testing

2013 ◽  
Vol 133 (10) ◽  
pp. 2408-2414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inge Stegeman ◽  
Thomas R. de Wijkerslooth ◽  
Esther M. Stoop ◽  
Monique van Leerdam ◽  
M. van Ballegooijen ◽  
...  
2001 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. A66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yutaka Yamaji ◽  
Makoto Okamoto ◽  
Haruhiko Yoshida ◽  
Takao Kawabe ◽  
Yasushi Shiratori ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 656-663
Author(s):  
Kate E Spies ◽  
Jennifer E Slovak

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the methodology of guaiac-based fecal occult blood (FOB) testing in healthy cats, and to examine the effect of feeding selected gastrointestinal diets (canned and dry) on FOB results. Methods Stool obtained from three cats was mixed with incremental quantities of EDTA whole blood. FOB tests were performed in triplicate and interpreted at 5 mins, and at 24, 48 and 72 h post-test set-up. Ten cats were fed their normal diets, a dry hydrolyzed protein diet, a dry gastrointestinal diet and then transitioned back to their normal diet over a 7-week period. A subsequent study was repeated with similar hydrolyzed protein and gastrointestinal canned diets. Two fecal samples were tested per cat each week using human point-of-care guaiac tests. Results Ten microliters of whole feline blood could be reliably detected in feline stool at all time points evaluated. There was no evidence of an association between the dry hydrolyzed and dry gastrointestinal diets and a positive FOB test result ( P = 0.33). Cats fed a canned gastrointestinal diet had a significantly higher probability of producing a positive FOB result than when on their normal diet ( P <0.01). Feeding the canned hydrolyzed diet was not associated with an increased probability of a positive FOB test vs the normal diet ( P = 0.94). Conclusions and relevance Small amounts of blood in feline stool can be reliably and repeatedly detected as early as 5 mins post-FOB test set-up, making this a user-friendly bench-top screening test in a veterinary setting. Cats fed a single dry hydrolyzed, dry gastroenteric or canned hydrolyzed diet in this study had a low chance of false-positive FOB test results, while those fed the canned gastrointestinal diet had a significantly greater likelihood of producing false-positive results.


2011 ◽  
Vol 85 (2) ◽  
pp. 214-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ida J. Korfage ◽  
Marjolein van Ballegooijen ◽  
Brendy Wauben ◽  
J. Dik F. Habbema ◽  
Marie-Louise Essink-Bot

2001 ◽  
Vol 37 (7) ◽  
pp. 912-917 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Loeve ◽  
R. Boer ◽  
G.J. van Oortmarssen ◽  
M. van Ballegooijen ◽  
J.D.F. Habbema

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 097-103
Author(s):  
Ashan T Hatharasinghe ◽  
Ike R Ogbu ◽  
Abdul G Gheriani ◽  
George A Trad ◽  
Andre E Manov

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a frequently addressed topic in primary care. Recent studies have been published detailing modifiable risk factors for CRC, as well as preventative measures. Providers must be up to date on screening recommendations and modalities. Colonoscopy is the preferred method of screening for CRC, and the screening recommendations in the United States were recently updated in 2020. It is also common for the practitioner to encounter patients who refuse colonoscopy but are willing to undergo alternative methods of testing. The COVID pandemic has also placed a burden on hospital resources, and colonoscopy may not be logistically feasible in some healthcare settings. Therefore, awareness of the guidelines for the various alternative modalities, along with their respective guidelines for frequency of screening is critical. This article provides a brief review of the risk factors associated with colon cancer, the screening modalities (including colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography, fecal immunohistochemical testing (FIT), guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT), multi target stool DNA testing (MTs-DNA), and others) and the most recent screening recommendations for the general population.


Bioanalysis ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 937-952 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary M Reisfield ◽  
Bruce A Goldberger ◽  
Roger L Bertholf

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document