Observational studyThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2026
Evaluating the role of faecal calprotectin in older adults: a retrospective observational study.
Observational study in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFaecal calprotectin (FC) is a marker of gastrointestinal (GI) inflammation that is widely used in primary care to identify patients who need to be referred for endoscopic assessment. Most guidelines advise against its use in older adults because of higher rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) in this group, and many studies include only younger adults, even though FC is still used in older adults.
aimTo evaluate FC performance in identifying inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and significant organic pathology in adults aged ≥50 years, to help inform its use and interpretation in primary care. Where available, faecal immunochemical test (FIT) data were also analysed. DESIGN AND
settingA retrospective observational study of patients who were referred from primary care to secondary care for colonoscopy at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust.
methodPatients who had undergone FC testing, followed by a colonoscopy, were recruited and grouped into younger adults (aged 18-49 years) and older adults (aged ≥50 years). Data were then collected using electronic health records to allow for analysis of FC diagnostic performance.
resultsIn total, 669 patients were included: 423 aged 18-49 years and 246 aged ≥50 years. There were no significant differences in FC levels between the groups (median FC level: 71 µg/g versus 85.5 µg/g respectively,
conclusionThese data show that FC remains a sensitive test in older adults. FC may have a role as a 'rule-out' test in adults aged ≥50 years who have lower GI symptoms and a negative FIT, when CRC is not suspected.
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.