Use of Fecal Occult Blood Test in Hospitalized Patients: Survey of Physicians Practicing in a Large Central Canadian Health Region and Canadian Gastroenterologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) was developed for colorectal cancer screening in the outpatient setting, it continues to be used among hospitalized patients. No previous study has evaluated the knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of practicing physicians on the use of FOBT among hospitalized patients and compared practices among physicians with different medical specialty training. OBJECTIVE: To survey physicians in the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (WRHA) and Canadian gastroenterologists (GIs) on the use of FOBT in hospitals. METHODS: A survey was distributed by e-mail to internists (n=198), emergency medicine (EM) physicians (n=118), general surgeons (n=47) and family medicine (FM) physicians with admitting privileges (n=29) in the WRHA. Canadian GIs were surveyed through the membership database of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) (n=449). The survey included items regarding demographics of the respondents and their current use of FOBT in hospitals. RESULTS: Response rates ranged from 18% among CAG members to 69% among FM physicians in the WRHA. General internal medicine, general surgeon and GI respondents were less likely to order a FOBT and less likely to believe that an FOBT was useful in assessing emergency room or hospitalized patients when compared with FM and EM respondents (P<0.001). The most common indications for ordering a FOBT were black stools and anemia with and without iron deficiency. Two-thirds of EM physicians preferred point-of-care testing rather than laboratory reporting of FOBT. CONCLUSIONS: The present survey suggests that FOBTs are commonly used in hospitals by EM and FM physicians for indications such as anemia and black stools.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".