ArticleBiochemia medica2021
The comparison of the three assays for determination of fecal calprotectin in inflammatory bowel disease.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2021. 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.
- Is there a correlation between serum and faecal calprotectin levels and the disease severity in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis? A pilot study.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2024Article
- Programming Factors of Neonatal Intestinal Dysbiosis as a Cause of Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Expert recommendations regarding the use of fecal calprotectin in daily clinical practice: statements of a taskforce process from the Hellenic Group for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (EOMIFNE).Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFecal calprotectin is a biomarker for monitoring inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) activity. Our aim, therefore, was to evaluate two new assays, the point of care test Quantum Blue and the Liaison Calprotectin with respect to the Calprest, commonly used assay, and to determine their performance for IBD diagnosis. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe included 73 prospective patients with IBD. Fecal calprotectin was measured and analysed with the routine Calprest assay and two recently introduced assays, the Quantum Blue and the Liaison Calprotectin. Furthermore, we compared the results by Bland and Altman analysis, and Passing-Bablok regression.
resultsWe observed no difference in median calprotectin values obtained by the Calprest (94.6 µg/g, 95%CI 66.5 to 166.1) and Liaison assay (101.0 µg/g, 95%CI 48.1 to 180.1) whereas significantly higher concentrations were obtained with the Quantum Blue assay (240.0 µg/g, 95%CI 119.9 to 353.2). The mean absolute and relative difference between the Calprest and Quantum Blue methods was statistically significant (- 162.3 µg/g and - 143.1%). Mean absolute difference between the Calprest and Liaison calprotectin methods was positive (2.2 µg/g). The agreement between assays revealed that Quantum Blue and Calprest have fair agreement with Kappa coefficient of 0.38 (95%CI 0.26 to 0.51). Liaison Calprotectin and Calprest revealed moderate agreement with a weak Kappa coefficient of 0.47 (95%CI 0.32 to 0.62).
conclusionClinicians should be aware of these differences between the assays and avoid comparison of their respective 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.