Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26855811›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics2016

Emerging role of novel biomarkers in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease.

Anet A Soubières, Andrew Poullis

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03291743 (The Biologic Onset of Crohn's Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03291743 naterminatednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

The Biologic Onset of Crohn's Disease: A Screening Study in First Degree Relatives

TypeinterventionalSponsorCarilion ClinicRan2017 to 2022Enrolled38ConditionsCrohn Disease, Genetic Predisposition, IBDArmsCapsule endoscopy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Anet A SoubièresAnet A Soubières, Andrew Poullis, Department of Gastroenterology, St George's Hospital, University of London, London SW17 0QT, United Kingdom.
Andrew PoullisAnet A Soubières, Andrew Poullis, Department of Gastroenterology, St George's Hospital, University of London, London SW17 0QT, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is currently no gold standard test for the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Physicians must rely on a number of diagnostic tools including clinical and endoscopic evaluation as well as histologic, serologic and radiologic assessment. The real difficulty for physicians in both primary and secondary care is differentiating between patients suffering from functional symptoms and those with true underlying IBD. Alongside this, there is always concern regarding the possibility of a missed, or delayed diagnosis of ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease. Even once the diagnosis of IBD has been made, there is often uncertainty in distinguishing between cases of UC or Crohn's. As a consequence, in cases of incorrect diagnosis, optimal treatment and management may be adversely affected. Endoscopic evaluation can be uncomfortable and inconvenient for patients. It carries significant risks including perforation and in terms of monetary cost, is expensive. The use of biomarkers to help in the diagnosis and differentiation of IBD has been increasing over time. However, there is not yet one biomarker, which is sensitive of specific enough to be used alone in diagnosing IBD. Current serum testing includes C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate, which are cheap, reliable but non-specific and thus not ideal. Stool based testing such as faecal calprotectin is a much more specific tool and is currently in widespread clinical use. Non-invasive sampling is of the greatest clinical value and with the recent advances in metabolomics, genetics and proteomics, there are now more tools available to develop sensitive and specific biomarkers to diagnose and differentiate between IBD. Many of these new advances are only in early stages of development but show great promise for future clinical use.

Indexed as

BiomarkersCrohn’s diseaseIndeterminate colitisInflammatory bowel diseaseUlcerative colitis

Identifiers

PMID26855811
PMCPMC4734953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.