ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2020
Analytical and clinical performance of the fully-automated LIAISONXL calprotectin immunoassay from DiaSorin in IBD patients.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Calprest ELISA vs. LiaisonBiomedicines · 2026Article
- Diagnostic value of leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein 1 and calprotectin in acute appendicitis: a short review.Biochemia medica · 2025Review
- Role of Calprotectin, IL-6, and CRP in Distinguishing Between Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Diarrhea Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2024Article
- Emergency colectomy for massive rectal bleeding in a patient with well-controlled ulcerative colitis receiving Vedolizumab.Archive of clinical cases · 2023Article
- Analytical and clinical evaluation of DiaSorin Liaison® Calprotectin fecal assay adapted for serum samples.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDistinction between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) based on clinical symptoms is often difficult. In this study we assessed the performance of the fully-automated calprotectin immunoassay from DiaSorin in IBD diagnosis and follow-up and compared it to the EliA calprotectin 2 immunoassay.
designand Methods: The calprotectin immunoassay from DiaSorin run on the LIAISONXL was analytically and clinically validated and compared to the EliA calprotectin 2 immunoassay from Thermo Fisher Scientific run on the ImmunoCAP250. Five patient groups were measured (n = 303): IBD: ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD); non-IBD: IBS, other gastrointestinal diseases and controls (healthy patients with no gastrointestinal disease).
resultsThe calprotectin immunoassay of DiaSorin showed good analytical performance with frozen samples. The presence of blood in the stool can interfere with the measurement of calprotectin. Patients suffering from IBD (UC or CD) showed significant higher concentrations of fecal calprotectin compared to controls (UC:710 ± 921 mg/kg; CD:967 ± 1243 mg/kg; controls:11±8 mg/kg) using DiaSorin's immunoassay. The remaining non-IBD groups showed no significant difference compared to controls. Follow-up patients (n = 9) showed a significant decrease in fecal calprotectin after treatment. At 50 mg/kg cut-off value, the negative predictive value for DiaSorin's immunoassay was 96% and the positive predictive value 83% (sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 86%).
conclusionsThe lack of standardization contributes to the numerical differences between the two methods, but the qualitative conclusions do not differ. DiaSorin's calprotectin immunoassay can be used both to distinguish between IBD and non-IBD patients as well as for follow-up of IBD patients.
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.