Cargando…

Faecal calprotectin to detect inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of test accuracy

OBJECTIVE: Test accuracy of faecal calprotectin (FC) testing in primary care is inconclusive. We aimed to assess the test accuracy of FC testing in primary care and compare it to secondary care estimates for the detection of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analy...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Freeman, Karoline, Willis, Brian H, Fraser, Hannah, Taylor-Phillips, Sian, Clarke, Aileen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6429840/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30852550
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027428
_version_ 1783405676516605952
author Freeman, Karoline
Willis, Brian H
Fraser, Hannah
Taylor-Phillips, Sian
Clarke, Aileen
author_facet Freeman, Karoline
Willis, Brian H
Fraser, Hannah
Taylor-Phillips, Sian
Clarke, Aileen
author_sort Freeman, Karoline
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Test accuracy of faecal calprotectin (FC) testing in primary care is inconclusive. We aimed to assess the test accuracy of FC testing in primary care and compare it to secondary care estimates for the detection of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy using a bivariate random effects model. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science until 31 May 2017 and included studies from auto alerts up until 31 January 2018. Eligible studies measured FC levels in stool samples to detect IBD in adult patients with chronic (at least 6–8 weeks) abdominal symptoms in primary or secondary care. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 criteria. We followed the protocol registered as PROSPERO CRD 42012003287. RESULTS: 38 out of 2168 studies were eligible including five from primary care. Comparison of test accuracy by setting was precluded by extensive heterogeneity. Overall, summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were not recorded. At a threshold of 50 µg/g, sensitivity from separate meta-analysis of four assay types ranged from 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.92) to 0.94 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.90) and specificity from 0.67 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.76) to 0.88 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.94). Across three different definitions of disease, sensitivity ranged from 0.80 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.84) to 0.97 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.99) and specificity from 0.67 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.75) to 0.76 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.84). Sensitivity appears to be lower in primary care and is further reduced at a revised threshold of 100 µg/g. CONCLUSIONS: Conclusive estimates of sensitivity and specificity of FC testing in primary care for the detection of IBD are still missing. There is insufficient evidence in the published literature to support the decision to introduce FC testing in primary care. Studies evaluating FC testing in an appropriate primary care setting are needed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6429840
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64298402019-04-05 Faecal calprotectin to detect inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of test accuracy Freeman, Karoline Willis, Brian H Fraser, Hannah Taylor-Phillips, Sian Clarke, Aileen BMJ Open Diagnostics OBJECTIVE: Test accuracy of faecal calprotectin (FC) testing in primary care is inconclusive. We aimed to assess the test accuracy of FC testing in primary care and compare it to secondary care estimates for the detection of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy using a bivariate random effects model. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science until 31 May 2017 and included studies from auto alerts up until 31 January 2018. Eligible studies measured FC levels in stool samples to detect IBD in adult patients with chronic (at least 6–8 weeks) abdominal symptoms in primary or secondary care. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 criteria. We followed the protocol registered as PROSPERO CRD 42012003287. RESULTS: 38 out of 2168 studies were eligible including five from primary care. Comparison of test accuracy by setting was precluded by extensive heterogeneity. Overall, summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were not recorded. At a threshold of 50 µg/g, sensitivity from separate meta-analysis of four assay types ranged from 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.92) to 0.94 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.90) and specificity from 0.67 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.76) to 0.88 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.94). Across three different definitions of disease, sensitivity ranged from 0.80 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.84) to 0.97 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.99) and specificity from 0.67 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.75) to 0.76 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.84). Sensitivity appears to be lower in primary care and is further reduced at a revised threshold of 100 µg/g. CONCLUSIONS: Conclusive estimates of sensitivity and specificity of FC testing in primary care for the detection of IBD are still missing. There is insufficient evidence in the published literature to support the decision to introduce FC testing in primary care. Studies evaluating FC testing in an appropriate primary care setting are needed. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-03-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6429840/ /pubmed/30852550 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027428 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Diagnostics
Freeman, Karoline
Willis, Brian H
Fraser, Hannah
Taylor-Phillips, Sian
Clarke, Aileen
Faecal calprotectin to detect inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of test accuracy
title Faecal calprotectin to detect inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of test accuracy
title_full Faecal calprotectin to detect inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of test accuracy
title_fullStr Faecal calprotectin to detect inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of test accuracy
title_full_unstemmed Faecal calprotectin to detect inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of test accuracy
title_short Faecal calprotectin to detect inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of test accuracy
title_sort faecal calprotectin to detect inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of test accuracy
topic Diagnostics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6429840/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30852550
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027428
work_keys_str_mv AT freemankaroline faecalcalprotectintodetectinflammatoryboweldiseaseasystematicreviewandexploratorymetaanalysisoftestaccuracy
AT willisbrianh faecalcalprotectintodetectinflammatoryboweldiseaseasystematicreviewandexploratorymetaanalysisoftestaccuracy
AT fraserhannah faecalcalprotectintodetectinflammatoryboweldiseaseasystematicreviewandexploratorymetaanalysisoftestaccuracy
AT taylorphillipssian faecalcalprotectintodetectinflammatoryboweldiseaseasystematicreviewandexploratorymetaanalysisoftestaccuracy
AT clarkeaileen faecalcalprotectintodetectinflammatoryboweldiseaseasystematicreviewandexploratorymetaanalysisoftestaccuracy