4.7 Article

Diagnostic precision of fecal calprotectin for inflammatory bowel disease and colorectal malignancy

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 102, 期 4, 页码 803-813

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01126.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: Fecal calprotectin (FC) is a relatively new marker of intraluminal intestinal inflammation. Using meta-analytical techniques, the study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic precision of FC for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and colorectal cancer (CRC) in adults and children. METHODS: Quantitative meta-analysis was performed on prospective studies, comparing FC levels against the histological diagnosis. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated for each study. Summary receiver-operating characteristic (sROC) curves and subgroup analysis were undertaken. Study quality and heterogeneity were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty studies of 5,983 patients were included. FC levels in patients with IBD were higher by 219.2 micrograms per gram (mu g/g) compared with normal patients (P < 0.001). sROC curve analysis showed a sensitivity of 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97), specificity of 0.91 (95% CI 0.86-0.91), and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.95 for the diagnosis of IBD. Patients with colorectal neoplasia had nonsignificantly higher FC levels by 132.2 mu g/g compared with noncancer controls (P = 0.18). Sensitivity and specificity of FC for the diagnosis of CRC were 0.36 and 0.71, respectively, with an AUC of 0.66. The diagnostic precision of FC for IBD was higher in children than adults with better accuracy at a cutoff level of 100 mu g/g versus 50 mu g/g. Sensitivity analysis and metaregression analysis did not significantly alter the results. CONCLUSIONS: FC cannot be recommended as a screening test for CRC in the general population. FC appeared to offer a good diagnostic precision in distinguishing IBD from non-IBD diagnoses, with higher precision at a cutoff of 100 mu g/g.

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

4.7
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