SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2026
Diagnostic accuracy of Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin (NGAL) for inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and bivariate diagnostic meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and to compare its performance with fecal calprotectin (FC), C-reactive protein (CRP), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) using marker-specific diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for diagnostic studies using endoscopy and/or histopathology as the reference standard. The primary synthesis used directly reported complete four-cell table data and marker-specific bivariate random-effects models (Reitsma). Exploratory analyses using sensitivity/specificity records were performed only as supplementary checks because patient populations, thresholds, sample types, and reference standards were not sufficiently exchangeable for a formal diagnostic network meta-analysis. Subgroup feasibility, direct-data sensitivity checks, continuity correction use, and Deeks funnel plot asymmetry were assessed.
resultsSeventy-eight studies with 148 diagnostic records were included. The primary bivariate analysis was based on 27 directly reported complete four-cell records, including 11 FC, 7 CRP, 5 ESR, and 4 NGAL records; 85 sensitivity/specificity records were used only for supplementary exploratory analyses. NGAL showed a pooled sensitivity of 90.9% (95% CI: 66.1%-98.1%) and specificity of 76.1% (95% CI: 42.4%-93.2%), but the estimate was imprecise and underpowered because only 13 NGAL records and 4 complete four-cell records were available. Exploratory network diagnostics did not support clinically interpretable ranking.
conclusionNGAL may have high sensitivity for IBD diagnosis, but current evidence is preliminary, heterogeneous, and based on very limited complete four-cell data. NGAL should not be interpreted as a replacement for FC or as a stand-alone diagnostic test. Larger prospective studies with standardized thresholds, sample types, and reference standards are 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.