ReviewClujul medical (1957)2015
Serum biomarkers for irritable bowel syndrome.
Review in Clujul medical (1957), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Second-Generation Biomarker Testing for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Using Plasma Anti-CdtB and Anti-Vinculin Levels.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2019Trial
- Tracking Anti-cytolethal Distending Toxin B and Anti-vinculin Over Time and Their Roles in Symptoms.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- STW 5 Herbal Preparation Modulates Wnt3a and Claudin 1 Gene Expression in Zebrafish IBS-like Model.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Monocyte chemotactic protein-1 and nitrotyrosine in irritable bowel syndrome.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
- Gut Microbiota Dysbiosis in Functional Dyspepsia.Microorganisms · 2020Review
- Microbiome and Its Role in Irritable Bowel Syndrome.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2020Review
- Gluten-Free Diet and Its 'Cousins' in Irritable Bowel Syndrome.Nutrients · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimIrritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most frequent and common functional gastrointestinal diseases. For its diagnosis, clinical criteria are still used. Our objective was to asses if there are specific serum biomarkers for the diagnosis of IBS, and as secondary purpose we aimed to analyze the specificity and sensitivity - where determined - for the proposed biomarkers.
methodsWe performed a review in order to find potential serum biomarkers useful for the diagnosis of IBS. MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched in May 2015. Inclusion criteria were: original studies that assessed serological markers in IBS patients, markers potentially useful for diagnosing IBS or in differentiating subtypes of IBS. Exclusion criteria were biomarkers assessed in IBS patients not for the diagnosis of IBS, but used in order to exclude other conditions or diseases in these patients; or markers that were not addressed to IBS; or papers that assessed only fecal biomarkers, or histological or surrogate - indirect biomarkers.
resultsFrom the 268 papers retrieved by our initial search, using a modified strategy we identified 58 papers. Out of the 58 papers retrieved by the search, six papers were selected and other nine studies were eventually analyzed. Of the results of the computerized search, a number of papers were not included for various reasons: some were not related to the subject (26), others were not appropriate for the subject (19) because they addressed inflammatory bowel disorders, in others fecal markers were the subject of the study, six were reviews, others were impossible to gain access to (1). Twelve out of the 14 studies included are case-control studies, IBS diagnosis being established in all of the selected results based on the Rome criteria. A higher sensitivity of 81% was found using a combination of markers but with lower specificity, while one study that assessed also a combination of markers, found a higher specificity but sensitivity was only 50 %; none reached the characteristics for an ideal biomarker.
conclusionsFor the moment, just one serum biomarker with a high specificity and sensitivity useful in the diagnosis of IBS was identified. We consider that in the future a combination of several biomarkers could better identify IBS than a single biomarker. Therefore, clinical criteria are still to be used for the diagnosis of IBS in attendance for newer research or validation of results.
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.