We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
Fecal immunochemical test for predicting mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a promising marker for assessment of inflammatory bowel disease activity. However, the utility of FIT for predicting mucosal healing (MH) of ulcerative colitis (UC) patients has yet to be clearly demonstrated. The objective of our study was to perform a diagnostic test accuracy test meta-analysis evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of FIT in predicting MH of UC patients.
METHODS: We systematically searched the databases from inception to November 2017 that evaluated MH in UC. The methodological quality of each study was assessed according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies checklist. The extracted data were pooled using a summary receiver operating characteristic curve model. Random-effects model was used to summarize the diagnostic odds ratio, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio.
RESULTS: Six studies comprising 625 UC patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity values for predicting MH in UC were 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.81) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76-0.85), respectively. The FIT level had a high rule-in value (positive likelihood ratio, 3.79; 95% CI, 2.85-5.03) and a moderate rule-out value (negative likelihood ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.16-0.43) for predicting MH in UC. The results of the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis (area under the curve, 0.88; standard error of the mean, 0.02) and diagnostic odds ratio (18.08; 95% CI, 9.57-34.13) also revealed improved discrimination for identifying MH in UC with FIT concentration.
CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis has found that FIT is a simple, reliable non-invasive marker for predicting MH in UC patients.
METHODS: We systematically searched the databases from inception to November 2017 that evaluated MH in UC. The methodological quality of each study was assessed according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies checklist. The extracted data were pooled using a summary receiver operating characteristic curve model. Random-effects model was used to summarize the diagnostic odds ratio, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio.
RESULTS: Six studies comprising 625 UC patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity values for predicting MH in UC were 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.81) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76-0.85), respectively. The FIT level had a high rule-in value (positive likelihood ratio, 3.79; 95% CI, 2.85-5.03) and a moderate rule-out value (negative likelihood ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.16-0.43) for predicting MH in UC. The results of the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis (area under the curve, 0.88; standard error of the mean, 0.02) and diagnostic odds ratio (18.08; 95% CI, 9.57-34.13) also revealed improved discrimination for identifying MH in UC with FIT concentration.
CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis has found that FIT is a simple, reliable non-invasive marker for predicting MH in UC patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app