The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
C-Reactive Protein, Fecal Calprotectin, and Stool Lactoferrin for Detection of Endoscopic Activity in Symptomatic Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Persistent disease activity is associated with a poor prognosis in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Therefore, monitoring of patients with intent to suppress subclinical inflammation has emerged as a treatment concept. As endoscopic monitoring is invasive and resource intensive, identification of valid markers of disease activity is a priority. The objective was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of C-reactive protein (CRP), fecal calprotectin (FC), and stool lactoferrin (SL) for assessment of endoscopically defined disease activity in IBD. METHODS: Databases were searched from inception to November 6, 2014 for relevant cohort and case-control studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of CRP, FC, or SL and used endoscopy as a gold standard in patients with symptoms consistent with active IBD. Sensitivities and specificities were pooled to generate operating property estimates for each test using a bivariate diagnostic meta-analysis. RESULTS: Nineteen studies (n=2499 patients) were eligible. The pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates for CRP, FC, and SL were 0.49 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.64) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.72-0.96), 0.88 (95% CI 0.84-0.90) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.66-0.79), and 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.88) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.62-0.89), respectively. FC was more sensitive than CRP in both diseases and was more sensitive in ulcerative colitis than Crohn's disease. CONCLUSIONS: Although CRP, FC, and SL are useful biomarkers, their value in managing individual patients must be considered in specific clinical contexts.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Bossuyt, P. M., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 · Cited by 3,369
Mucosal Healing in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Results From a Norwegian Population-Based Cohort
Frøslie, K. F., Jahnsen, J., Moum, B. A., & Vatn, M. H. (2007) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2007.05.051 · Cited by 1,121
Berni Canani, R., Terrin, G., Rapacciuolo, L., Miele, E., Siani, M. C., Puzone, C., Cosenza, L., Staiano, A., & Troncone, R. (2008) · Digestive and Liver Disease · doi:10.1016/j.dld.2008.01.017 · Cited by 175
Cited by
Lamb, C. A., Kennedy, N. A., Raine, T., Hendy, P. A., Smith, P. J., Limdi, J. K., Hayee, B., Lomer, M. C. E., Parkes, G. C., Selinger, C., et al. (2019) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318484 · Cited by 2,346
Gut microbiome structure and metabolic activity in inflammatory bowel disease
Franzosa, E. A., Sirota-Madi, A., Avila-Pacheco, J., Fornelos, N., Haiser, H. J., Reinker, S., Vatanen, T., Hall, A. B., Mallick, H., McIver, L. J., et al. (2018) · Nature Microbiology · doi:10.1038/s41564-018-0306-4 · Cited by 1,995
Calprotectin: from biomarker to biological function
Jukic, A., Bakiri, L., Wagner, E. F., Tilg, H., & Adolph, T. E. (2021) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324855 · Cited by 500
Current best practice for disease activity assessment in IBD
Walsh, A. J., Bryant, R. V., & Travis, S. P. L. (2016) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2016.128 · Cited by 223
Positioning and usefulness of biomarkers in inflammatory bowel disease
Sakurai, T., & Saruta, M. (2023) · Digestion · doi:10.1159/000527846 · Cited by 156
Zollner, A., Schmiderer, A., Reider, S. J., Oberhuber, G., Pfister, A., Texler, B., Watschinger, C., Koch, R., Effenberger, M., Raine, T., et al. (2021) · Journal of Crohn's and Colitis · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjaa124 · Cited by 95
Sexton, K. A., Walker, J. R., Graff, L. A., Bernstein, M. T., Beatie, B., Miller, N., Sargent, M., & Targownik, L. E. (2017) · Inflammatory Bowel Diseases · doi:10.1097/mib.0000000000001040 · Cited by 79
Serum biomarkers confirming stable remission in inflammatory bowel disease
Kessel, C., Lavric, M., Weinhage, T., Brueckner, M., de Roock, S., Däbritz, J., Weber, J., Vastert, S. J., & Foell, D. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-86251-w · Cited by 54
Rocha, I. M. G. D., Torrinhas, R., Fonseca, D., Lyra, C. D. O., de Sousa Alves Neri, J. L., Balmant, B. D., Callado, L., Charlton, K., Queiroz, N., & Waitzberg, D. L. (2023) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu15194148 · Cited by 43
Stone, J. K., Shafer, L. A., Graff, L. A., Witges, K., Sexton, K., Lix, L. M., Haviva, C., Targownik, L. E., & Bernstein, C. N. (2022) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2022.110719 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Mosli, M. H., Zou, G., Garg, S. K., Feagan, S. G., MacDonald, J. K., Chande, N., Sandborn, W. J., & Feagan, B. G.
- Venue
- American Journal of Gastroenterology
- Published
- 2015-06
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 802-819
- ISSN
- 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2105857910
- Cited by
- 690
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 5.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
