scholarly journals Faecal calprotectin to detect inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of test accuracy

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e027428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karoline Freeman ◽  
Brian H Willis ◽  
Hannah Fraser ◽  
Sian Taylor-Phillips ◽  
Aileen Clarke
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Secondary Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Faecal Calprotectin ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel

ObjectiveTest accuracy of faecal calprotectin (FC) testing in primary care is inconclusive. We aimed to assess the test accuracy of FC testing in primary care and compare it to secondary care estimates for the detection of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy using a bivariate random effects model. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science until 31 May 2017 and included studies from auto alerts up until 31 January 2018. Eligible studies measured FC levels in stool samples to detect IBD in adult patients with chronic (at least 6–8 weeks) abdominal symptoms in primary or secondary care. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 criteria. We followed the protocol registered as PROSPERO CRD 42012003287.Results38 out of 2168 studies were eligible including five from primary care. Comparison of test accuracy by setting was precluded by extensive heterogeneity. Overall, summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were not recorded. At a threshold of 50 µg/g, sensitivity from separate meta-analysis of four assay types ranged from 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.92) to 0.94 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.90) and specificity from 0.67 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.76) to 0.88 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.94). Across three different definitions of disease, sensitivity ranged from 0.80 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.84) to 0.97 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.99) and specificity from 0.67 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.75) to 0.76 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.84). Sensitivity appears to be lower in primary care and is further reduced at a revised threshold of 100 µg/g.ConclusionsConclusive estimates of sensitivity and specificity of FC testing in primary care for the detection of IBD are still missing. There is insufficient evidence in the published literature to support the decision to introduce FC testing in primary care. Studies evaluating FC testing in an appropriate primary care setting are needed.

Primary care faecal calprotectin testing in children with suspected inflammatory bowel disease: a diagnostic accuracy study

2020 ◽  
Vol 105 (10) ◽  
pp. 957-963
Author(s):  
Gareth J Walker ◽  
Neil Chanchlani ◽  
Amanda Thomas ◽  
Simeng Lin ◽  
Lucy Moore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Secondary Care ◽  
Gastrointestinal Symptoms ◽  
Healthcare Utilisation ◽  
Faecal Calprotectin ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel

ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of calprotectin to diagnose inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in children in whom general practitioners (GPs) suspected IBD.DesignProspective observational cohort study of a new calprotectin-based primary care referral pathway.Setting48 GP practices and gastroenterology secondary care services at the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust in the South-West of England, UK.Patients195 children aged between 4 and 18 years referred on the pathway between January 2014 and August 2017 for investigation of gastrointestinal symptoms were included.InterventionsPrimary-care-driven faecal calprotectin testing. Primary and secondary care records over 12 months from the point of calprotectin testing were used as the reference standard.Main outcome measuresDiagnostic accuracy of calprotectin testing to detect IBD.Results7% (13/195) tested patients were diagnosed with IBD. Using our prespecified cut-off of 100 µg/g, calprotectin had a diagnostic accuracy of 91% (95% CI 86% to 95%) with a sensitivity for distinguishing IBD from non-IBD of 100% (95% CI 75% to 100%), a specificity of 91% (95% CI 85% to 94%), a positive predictive value of 43% (95% CI 25% to 63%) and a negative predictive value of 100% (95% CI 98% to 100%). Calprotectin testing had no effect on the time to diagnosis, but a negative test contributed to saved referrals and was associated with fewer diagnostic tests in secondary care.ConclusionsCalprotectin testing of children with suspected IBD in primary care accurately distinguishes IBD from a functional gut disorder, reduces secondary care referrals and associated diagnostic healthcare utilisation.

Fr546 INTERVENTIONS TO INCREASE VACCINATIONS RATES WITH INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE AND RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 160 (6) ◽  
pp. S-357
Author(s):  
Jalpa Patel ◽  
Dina Fakhouri ◽  
Mohamed Noureldin ◽  
Iris Kovar-Gough ◽  
Francis A. Farraye ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel

scholarly journals Optimal Range of Fecal Calprotectin for Predicting Mucosal Healing in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Bing-Jie Xiang ◽  
Min Jiang ◽  
Ming-Jun Sun ◽  
Cong Dai
Keyword(s):  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Positive Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Fecal Calprotectin ◽  
Mucosal Healing ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel

<b><i>Objective:</i></b> Fecal calprotectin (FC) is a promising marker for assessment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) activity. However, the utility of FC for predicting mucosal healing (MH) of IBD patients has yet to be clearly demonstrated. The objective of our study was to perform a meta-analysis evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of FC in predicting MH of IBD patients. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We systematically searched the databases for studies from inception to April 2020 that evaluated MH in IBD. The methodological quality of each study was assessed according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies checklist. The extracted data were pooled using a summary receiver operating characteristic curve model. Random-effects model was used to summarize the diagnostic odds ratio, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Sixteen studies comprising 1,682 ulcerative colitis (UC) patients and 4 studies comprising 221 Crohn’s disease (CD) patients were included. The best performance of FC for predicting MH in UC was at cut-off range of 60–75 μg/g with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.88 and pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.87 and 0.79, respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity values of cutoff range 180–250 μg/g for predicting MH in CD were 0.67 and 0.76, respectively. The AUC of 0.79 also revealed improved discrimination for identifying MH in CD with FC concentration. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Our meta-analysis has found that FC is a simple, reliable noninvasive marker for predicting MH in IBD patients. FC cutoff range 60–75 μg/g appears to have the best overall accuracy in UC patients.

Sa1727 - Chromoendoscopy Versus High Definition White Light Endoscopy for Dysplasia Detection in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 154 (6) ◽  
pp. S-371
Author(s):  
Ramprasad Jegadeesan ◽  
Madhav Desai ◽  
Tharani Sundararajan ◽  
Venkata Subhash Gorrepati ◽  
Viveksandeep Thogulva Chandrasekar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
White Light ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Definition ◽  
White Light Endoscopy ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel

scholarly journals A135 INCIDENCE OF SUICIDE IN INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (suppl_2) ◽  
pp. 201-202
Author(s):  
C Zhang ◽  
G Byrne ◽  
T Lee ◽  
J Singer ◽  
D Giustini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document