Clinical outcomes using a faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin as a first-line test in a national programme constrained by colonoscopy capacity
Published 2013 View Full Article
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Search
- Publication Details
Title
Clinical outcomes using a faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin as a first-line test in a national programme constrained by colonoscopy capacity
Authors
Keywords
-
Journal
United European Gastroenterology Journal
Volume 1, Issue 3, Pages 198-205
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Online
2013-05-08
DOI
10.1177/2050640613489281
References
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.- Fecal Immunochemical Tests Compared with Guaiac Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Population-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening
- (2016) Linda Rabeneck et al. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
- Guaiac based faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening: an obsolete strategy?
- (2012) Graeme P Young et al. GUT
- Experience with a two-tier reflex gFOBT/FIT strategy in a national bowel screening programme
- (2012) Callum G Fraser et al. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING
- Are Fecal Immunochemical Test Characteristics Influenced by Sample Return Time? A Population-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial
- (2011) Aafke HC van Roon et al. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
- Faecal haemoglobin concentrations by gender and age: implications for population-based screening for colorectal cancer
- (2011) Paula J. McDonald et al. CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE
- Interval cancers in a FOBT-based colorectal cancer population screening programme: implications for stage, gender and tumour site
- (2011) R J C Steele et al. GUT
- Performance measures in three rounds of the English bowel cancer screening pilot
- (2011) S M Moss et al. GUT
- Outcomes of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England after the first 1 million tests
- (2011) Richard F A Logan et al. GUT
- Comparison of Guaiac-Based and Quantitative Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Testing in a Population at Average Risk Undergoing Colorectal Cancer Screening
- (2010) Dong Il Park et al. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
- Acceptance quality checks for qualitative fecal immunochemical tests ensure screening program consistency
- (2010) Paula J. McDonald et al. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
- Effect of Gender, Age and Deprivation on Key Performance Indicators in a Fobt-based Colorectal Screening Programme
- (2010) R J C Steele et al. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING
- Screening for colorectal cancer: random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing at different cut-off levels
- (2009) L Hol et al. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
- Cutoff value determines the performance of a semi-quantitative immunochemical faecal occult blood test in a colorectal cancer screening programme
- (2009) L G M van Rossum et al. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
- Immunochemical faecal occult blood test: number of samples and positivity cutoff. What is the best strategy for colorectal cancer screening?
- (2009) G Grazzini et al. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
- Screening for colorectal cancer: randomised trial comparing guaiac-based and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy
- (2009) L Hol et al. GUT
- Cochrane Systematic Review of Colorectal Cancer Screening Using the Fecal Occult Blood Test (Hemoccult): An Update
- (2008) Paul Hewitson et al. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
- Random Comparison of Guaiac and Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer in a Screening Population
- (2008) Leo G. van Rossum et al. GASTROENTEROLOGY
- Results from the first three rounds of the Scottish demonstration pilot of FOBT screening for colorectal cancer
- (2008) R J C Steele et al. GUT
Find Funding. Review Successful Grants.
Explore over 25,000 new funding opportunities and over 6,000,000 successful grants.
ExploreBecome a Peeref-certified reviewer
The Peeref Institute provides free reviewer training that teaches the core competencies of the academic peer review process.
Get Started