Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 690

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

Mosli, Mahmoud H, Zou, Guangyong, Garg, Sushil K, Feagan, Sean G, MacDonald, John K, Chande, Nilesh, Sandborn, William J, Feagan, Brian G·2015·American Journal of Gastroenterology

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ajg.2015.120

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 690

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.