ArticleIntestinal research2025
Diagnostic performance of noninvasive tests for cytomegalovirus ileocolitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Intestinal research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Impact of Cytomegalovirus Infection in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsDiagnosis of cytomegalovirus (CMV) ileocolitis traditionally requires colonoscopy with tissue biopsy. Due to potential complications in high-risk patients, there is growing interest in serum and stool tests for diagnosing this condition. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of these noninvasive tests compared to traditional gold standards.
methodsTwo independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search on MEDLINE and Embase from inception up to October 1, 2023. Prospective and retrospective studies evaluating the performance of serum CMV polymerase chain reaction (PCR), serum CMV antigen (Ag), and stool CMV PCR in diagnosing CMV ileocolitis were included. Tissue histopathology or tissue CMV PCR served as reference standards. Diagnostic performances of each serum and stool test were calculated based on a meta-analysis using random-effects model.
resultsA total of 30 studies, comprising 23 studies of serum CMV PCR, 9 of serum CMV Ag, and 7 of stool CMV PCR, were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under summary receiver operating characteristic curves were 62% (95% confidence interval [CI], 51%-72%), 90% (95% CI, 79%-96%), and 0.81 for serum CMV PCR, 38% (95% CI, 26%-51%), 94% (95% CI, 70%-99%), and 0.56 for serum CMV Ag, and 53% (95% CI, 35%-70%), 91% (95% CI, 84%-95%), and 0.84 for stool CMV PCR.
conclusionsSerum and stool tests cannot replace colonoscopy for diagnosing CMV ileocolitis due to their low sensitivities but may be useful when colonoscopy is not feasible. Positive results can aid diagnosis, given their high specificities. Serum and/or stool CMV PCR are preferred over CMV Ag.
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.