These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Unrestricted faecal calprotectin testing performs poorly in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease in patients in primary care.
    Author: Conroy S, Hale MF, Cross SS, Swallow K, Sidhu RH, Sargur R, Lobo AJ.
    Journal: J Clin Pathol; 2018 Apr; 71(4):316-322. PubMed ID: 28844038.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Faecal calprotectin (FC) measurement distinguishes patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from those with irritable bowel syndrome but evidence of its performance in primary care is limited. AIMS: To assess the yield of IBD from FC testing in primary care. METHODS: Retrospective review of hospital records to assess the outcome following FC testing in primary care. Investigations for all patients undergoing FC testing in a single laboratory for 6 months from 1 October 2013 to 28 February 2014 were reviewed. RESULTS: 410 patients (162 male; median age 42; range 16-91) were included. FC>50 µg/g was considered positive (FC+). 148/410 (36.1%; median age 44 (17-91)) were FC+ (median FC 116.5 µg/g (51-1770)). 122/148 FC-positive patients (82.4%) underwent further investigation. 97 (65.5%) underwent lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (LGIE), of which 7 (7.2%) had IBD. 49/262 (18.7%) FC-negative (FC-) patients (FC ≤50 µg/g) (median age 47 (19-76)) also underwent LGIE, of whom 3 (6.1%) had IBD.IBD was diagnosed in 11/410 (2.7%; 4 ulcerative colitis, 3 Crohn's disease, 4 microscopic colitis). 8/11 were FC+ (range 67-1170) and 3 FC-. At a 50 µg/g threshold, sensitivity for detecting IBD was 72.7%, specificity 64.9%, positive predictive value (PPV) 5.41% and negative predictive value 98.9%. Increasing the threshold to 100 µg/g reduced the sensitivity of the test for detecting IBD to 54.6%. CONCLUSIONS: FC testing in primary care has low sensitivity and specificity with poor PPV for diagnosing IBD. Its use needs to be directed to those with a higher pretest probability of disease. Local services and laboratories should advise general practitioners accordingly.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]