MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158216975

Are medication restrictions before FOBT necessary?: practical advice based on a systematic review of the literature.

2012· review· en· W2158216975 on OpenAlexaff
Gerald Konrad, Alan Katz

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAspirinFecal occult bloodAscorbic acidMEDLINECINAHLWarfarinRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisInternal medicinePsychological interventionSystematic reviewIntensive care medicineColorectal cancerCancerColonoscopy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether medication interventions enhance the sensitivity and specificity of guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) when screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed-MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane databases using the MeSH headings occult blood, feces/analysis, and guaiac/analysis, linking them to variations of anticoagulants, heparin, warfarin, iron, aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), clopidogrel, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, and ascorbic acid (vitamin C). Study selections were limited to English studies involving humans. STUDY SELECTION: All resulting titles and abstracts were reviewed for studies that included manipulation of medications associated with guaiac-based FOBT. If the study's relevance was unclear from the abstract, the full article was reviewed. The search resulted in 31 pertinent studies. SYNTHESIS: No studies addressed the effects of medication interventions on the sensitivity or specificity of FOBT screening. Randomized controlled trials, however, showed no increase in the rate of positive results among those taking NSAIDs. The literature is mixed regarding the effect of NSAIDs on the positive predictive value of a positive FOBT result, although no change in positive predictive value has been shown for warfarin. Iron will not affect FOBT results in vivo. Ascorbic acid might inhibit positive FOBT results both in vitro and in vivo, but it has not been studied in screening populations. CONCLUSION: Studies evaluating the effects of medication intervention on FOBT screening for CRC are limited by their lower quality and because they do not address sensitivity and specificity. Available evidence, however, does not suggest a benefit from withholding NSAIDs, anticoagulant medications, or iron during the screening period. These recommendations should be abandoned in order to maximize adherence to screening. Positive FOBT results obtained among patients taking these medications deserve full evaluation for CRC. Until further studies clarify the effect of ascorbic acid on FOBT screening, withholding this medication before testing seems prudent.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207