ArticleBMJ open2014
Comparison of three tests for faecal calprotectin in children and young adults: a retrospective monocentric study.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of sex and disease classification on patient-reported outcome measures in axial spondyloarthritis: a descriptive prospective cross-sectional study.Arthritis research & therapy · 2019Trial
- Faecal calprotectin reference ranges in early childhood: a cross-sectional study of healthy infants in Hungary.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Article
- Fecal calprotectin in pediatric gastrointestinal diseases: Pros and cons.World journal of clinical pediatrics · 2024Article
- Fecal Calprotectin Levels Significantly Correlate with Polyp Size in Children and Adolescents with Juvenile Colorectal Polyps.Pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology & nutrition · 2023Article
- Potential Utility of Fecal Calprotectin in Discriminating Colorectal Polyps From Other Major Etiologies in Children Presenting With Isolated Hematochezia.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Article
- Article
- Comparison of a rapid test and an automated method for faecal calprotectin measurement.Practical laboratory medicine · 2019Article
- Irritable bowel syndrome in children: Current knowledge, challenges and opportunities.World journal of gastroenterology · 2018Review
- Elevated levels of faecal calprotectin in primary Sjögren's syndrome is common and associated with concomitant organic gastrointestinal disease.Arthritis research & therapy · 2016Article
- Maladaptive Behavior and Gastrointestinal Disorders in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.Pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology & nutrition · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFaecal calprotectin is used as a sensitive marker for gastrointestinal mucosal inflammation. We compared the performance of three different assays in a large cohort of symptomatic paediatric patients.
designRetrospective monocentric study.
settingInpatients and outpatients of a tertiary referral centre for paediatric gastroenterology.
participants304 symptomatic patients (163 males, aged 2-20 years) with active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD/A, n=130), IBD in clinical remission (IBD/R, n=62), other intestinal diseases (n=45) and controls without identified intestinal disease (n=67).
interventionsCalprotectin was measured in homogenised faecal samples with three tests (A: EliA Calprotectin, Phadia AB, Sweden; B: PhiCal, Calpro AS, Norway; C: EK-Cal, Bühlmann Laboratories, Switzerland). OUTCOMES: Concordance between tests was calculated using Kendall's τ coefficient.
resultsIBD/A and controls were correctly classified as 97.7%/82.1% (A), 97.7%/85.1% (B) and 98.4%/62.7% (C; not significant). Test C tended to have higher calprotectin values with a lower specificity compared to tests A and B. The concordance between two tests was 0.835 for tests A and B, 0.782 for tests A and C and 0.765 for tests B and C.
conclusionsAll three tests are very sensitive for detecting mucosal inflammation, but major differences exist between specificity and absolute values. It is highly advisable to use the test of the same manufacturer for follow-up and to monitor for disease activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.