Cited by 9Genetics and Physical PerformanceInflammatory Bowel DiseasePhysical Activity and Health

Strenuous endurance exercise: is more better for everyone? Our genes won't tell us

Open access
La Gerche, André, Prior, David L, Heidbüchel, Hein·2011·British Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract

Introduction Analysis of faecal calprotectin (FC) is a non-invasive method for differentiating IBS from IBD. As a screening test, a normal FC has been employed to support a diagnosis of IBS, thereby avoiding invasive endoscopy in the patient cohort. We sought to investigate the diagnostic yield on subsequent colonoscopy in patients with mildly elevated FC and lower GI symptoms. Methods Between November 2009 and November 2010, all patients with a FC value of 50–100 μg/g of stool (normal 100 ug/g stool, were known cases of IBD, had a history of NSAID intake, positive stool cultures, or any “alarm” GI symptoms. A similar cohort was identified with age & sex matched controls with FC values <50 μg/g. All the patients who did not go on to have a complete colonoscopy were removed from further analysis. Patients9 records were analysed electronically using the NHS Great Glasgow & Clyde Clinical Portal. Results 216 patients were identified with a FC of 50–100 μg/g. After exclusion criteria, 158 patients remained. Of these 82 underwent complete colonoscopy (mean age 36.7, M:F 1:2.2) which was abnormal in only six cases (three cases of a single adenoma<10 mm, one diverticulosis, one helminth infection & one non-specific acute inflammation). 280 patients were identified with a FC<50 μg/g. After exclusion criteria, 176 patients remained. Of these 65 underwent complete colonoscopy (mean age 36.6, M:F 1:2.3) which was abnormal in only eight cases (six cases of non-specific acute inflammation…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bjsm.2010.081141

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
La Gerche, A., Prior, D. L., & Heidbüchel, H.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
Venue
British Journal of Sports Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2010-12-27
Volume
45
Issue
3
Pages
162-164
ISSN
  • 0306-3674 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-0480
OpenAlex
W2110249068
Cited by
9
References
4
Citations by year
2019: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Sports Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Physical Performance
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Inflammatory Bowel Disease
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
fecal calprotectin, inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, colonoscopy, diagnostic yield, non-invasive screening, diverticulosis, adenoma, lower gastrointestinal symptoms, negative predictive value
MeSH terms
Humans, Life Expectancy, Physical Endurance, Physical Fitness, Exercise

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