SynthesisBMJ open2019
Faecal calprotectin to detect inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of test accuracy.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing outcomes from tailored meta-analysis with outcomes from a setting specific test accuracy study using routine data of faecal calprotectin testing for inflammatory bowel disease.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Diagnostic Utility of Non-invasive Tests for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Umbrella Review.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Diagnostic and clinical significance of antigen-specific pancreatic antibodies in inflammatory bowel diseases: A meta-analysis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Pooled it
- Article
- Baseline gut microbiome features associated with fecal calprotectin response to exclusive enteral nutrition in pediatric Crohn's disease.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Dietary inflammatory potential, genetic predisposition, and incidence of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.Nutrition & metabolism · 2025Article
- Hospitalization Rates for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Are Decreasing Over Time: A Population-based Cohort Study.Inflammatory bowel diseases · 2023Article
- Diagnostic value of fecal calprotectin in primary care patients with gastrointestinal symptoms: A retrospective Swedish cohort study.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023Article
- Pro-Inflammatory Diet Is Correlated with HighNutrients · 2023Article
- Colonocyte keratin 7 is expressed de novo in inflammatory bowel diseases and associated with pathological changes and drug-resistance.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Inflammatory bowel disease biomarkers.Medicinal research reviews · 2022Review
- Review
- Fecal Leukocyte Esterase, an Alternative Biomarker to Fecal Calprotectin in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Pilot Series.Gastro hep advances · 2022Article
- Faecal calprotectin testing in UK general practice: a retrospective cohort study using The Health Improvement Network database.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- Antidepressants for irritable bowel syndrome.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2020Article
- Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTest accuracy of faecal calprotectin (FC) testing in primary care is inconclusive. We aimed to assess the test accuracy of FC testing in primary care and compare it to secondary care estimates for the detection of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy using a bivariate random effects model. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science until 31 May 2017 and included studies from auto alerts up until 31 January 2018. Eligible studies measured FC levels in stool samples to detect IBD in adult patients with chronic (at least 6-8 weeks) abdominal symptoms in primary or secondary care. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 criteria. We followed the protocol registered as PROSPERO CRD 42012003287.
results38 out of 2168 studies were eligible including five from primary care. Comparison of test accuracy by setting was precluded by extensive heterogeneity. Overall, summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were not recorded. At a threshold of 50 µg/g, sensitivity from separate meta-analysis of four assay types ranged from 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.92) to 0.94 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.90) and specificity from 0.67 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.76) to 0.88 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.94). Across three different definitions of disease, sensitivity ranged from 0.80 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.84) to 0.97 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.99) and specificity from 0.67 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.75) to 0.76 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.84). Sensitivity appears to be lower in primary care and is further reduced at a revised threshold of 100 µg/g.
conclusionsConclusive estimates of sensitivity and specificity of FC testing in primary care for the detection of IBD are still missing. There is insufficient evidence in the published literature to support the decision to introduce FC testing in primary care. Studies evaluating FC testing in an appropriate primary care setting are needed.
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.