ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
Evaluation of non-invasive diagnostic tools for diarrhea: a systematic review of point-of-care tests and biomarkers.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of fecal inflammatory biomarkers to identify watery shigellosis: Findings from the Enterics for Global Health (EFGH) Shigella surveillance study.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Acute infectious gastroenteritis in childhood: the role of rapid multiplex molecular syndromic panels in diagnosis and clinical management.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diarrhea is a prevalent condition affecting millions worldwide. However, current standard diagnostic methods have many drawbacks. This review examines various non-invasive point-of-care (POC) tests and biomarkers aiding rapid diagnosis of diarrhea from different causes. Methods: PubMed, PubMed Central, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched from 2013 to present for relevant literature. Two reviewers independently assessed included studies' quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. Results: The search yielded 1453 studies, of which 39 were included after screening and applying eligibility criteria. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was the POC test in 25 studies, providing consistent sensitivity and specificity. For biomarkers, C-reactive protein (CRP), fecal calprotectin, and procalcitonin offered high sensitivity and specificity for conditions like acute pediatric diarrhea, microscopic colitis, and inflammatory diarrhea, respectively. Conclusion: PCR proved the ideal POC test for rapid diarrhea diagnosis, while the procalcitonin biomarker helps differentiate inflammatory from non-inflammatory diarrhea. Other reviewed tools also demonstrated promising diagnostic performance, though improvements in sensitivity, specificity, and usability are still 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.