4.1 Review

Fecal Calprotectin in Assessing Inflammatory Bowel Disease Endoscopic Activity: a Diagnostic Accuracy Meta-analysis

期刊

出版社

MEDICAL UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.15403/jgld.2014.1121.273.pti

关键词

Inflammatory bowel disease; Crohn's disease; ulcerative colitis; fecal calprotectin; diagnostic accuracy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aim: Fecal calprotectin (FC) has been suggested as a sensitive biomarker of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, its usefulness in assessing IBD activity needs to be more precisely defined. In this meta-analysis we aimed to determine the diagnostic performance of FC in assessing IBD endoscopic activity in adults. Methods: We searched the databases Pubmed/Medline and EMBASE, and studies which examined IBD endoscopic activity in association to FC were identified. From each study pooled data and consequently pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios (LR), diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) and areas under the curve (AUCs) were calculated, using suitable meta-analysis software. We analyzed extracted data using fixed or random effects models, as appropriate, depending on the presence of significant heterogeneity. Results: We included 49 sets of data from 25 eligible for meta-analysis studies, with 298 controls and 2,822 IBD patients. Fecal calprotectin in IBD (Crohn's disease, CD and ulcerative colitis, UC) showed a pooled sensitivity of 85%, specificity of 75%, DOR of 16.3 and AUC of 0.88, in diagnosing active disease. The sub-group analysis revealed that FC performed better in UC than in CD (pooled sensitivity 87.3% vs 82.4%, specificity 77.1% vs 72.1% and AUC 0.91 vs 0.84). Examining the optimum FC cut-off levels, the best sensitivity (90.6%) was achieved at 50 mu g/g, whereas the best specificity (78.2%) was found at levels > 100 mu g/g. Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed that in adults, FC is a reliable laboratory test for assessing endoscopic activity in IBD. Its performance is better in UC than CD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据