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

Lee MW, Pourmorady JS, Laine L. Use of Fecal Occult Blood Testing as a Diagnostic Tool for Clinical Indications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2020 May 1; 115(5):662-670.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• SDR 18-151 – Evaluation of the National Randomized Proton Pump Inhibitor De-prescribing (RaPPID) Program

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

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.