ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2020
Evaluation of a fluorescent immunochromatography test for fecal calprotectin.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The value of fecal calprotectin measured by fluorescent immunochromatography assay in evaluating clinical and endoscopic activity in ulcerative colitis.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Performance of the Flash10 COVID-19 point-of-care molecular test.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a fluorescent immunochromatography test for fecal calprotectin.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFecal calprotectin (FC) is widely used to discriminate between patients with inflammatory diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and functional diseases such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). ELISA is a time-consuming method for the measurement of FC, whereas a fluorescent immunochromatography test can obtain results in around 30 minutes and thus enables a rapid response to clinical decision.
methodsTwo methods, the Proglead
resultsThe two methods were highly correlated (rho = .96). Deming regression was employed to calculate the regression equation, with a slope of 1.01 and an intercept of -4.98 μg/g. The estimated median bias (FC Proglead - FC BÜHLMANN) was -4.19 μg/g with the 95% limits of agreement (-55.59 to 47.21 μg/g), and the estimated median percent bias was -8.71% with the 95% limits of agreement (-50.31% to 32.90%). There was 4.50% (5/111) of values outside the 95% limits of agreement. Percent biases at the FC cutoff values of 50 and 200 μg/g between both methods evaluated by Deming regression were 8.96% and 1.49%, respectively. The biases were all less than the acceptable standard (10%). And, 99.10% of FC results were in agreement between both methods (kappa = .99, P < .001).
conclusionsFC Proglead may be used as a suitable alternative to FC BÜHLMANN for the disease activity assessment for patients with IBD, considering its convenience and shorter turnaround time.
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.