Article Search
검색
검색 팝업 닫기

Metrics

Help

  • 1. Aims and Scope

    Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut atnd Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. +MORE

  • 2. Editorial Board

    Editor-in-Chief + MORE

    Editor-in-Chief
    Yong Chan Lee Professor of Medicine
    Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory
    Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco
    San Francisco, USA

    Deputy Editor

    Deputy Editor
    Jong Pil Im Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
    Robert S. Bresalier University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
    Steven H. Itzkowitz Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA
  • 3. Editorial Office
  • 4. Articles
  • 5. Instructions for Authors
  • 6. File Download (PDF version)
  • 7. Ethical Standards
  • 8. Peer Review

    All papers submitted to Gut and Liver are reviewed by the editorial team before being sent out for an external peer review to rule out papers that have low priority, insufficient originality, scientific flaws, or the absence of a message of importance to the readers of the Journal. A decision about these papers will usually be made within two or three weeks.
    The remaining articles are usually sent to two reviewers. It would be very helpful if you could suggest a selection of reviewers and include their contact details. We may not always use the reviewers you recommend, but suggesting reviewers will make our reviewer database much richer; in the end, everyone will benefit. We reserve the right to return manuscripts in which no reviewers are suggested.

    The final responsibility for the decision to accept or reject lies with the editors. In many cases, papers may be rejected despite favorable reviews because of editorial policy or a lack of space. The editor retains the right to determine publication priorities, the style of the paper, and to request, if necessary, that the material submitted be shortened for publication.

Search

Search

Year

to

Article Type

Original Article

Split Viewer

Diagnostic Accuracy of Fecal Calprotectin for the Detection of Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease through Capsule Endoscopy: An Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Eun Suk Jung1 , Sang Pyo Lee1 , Sea Hyub Kae1 , Jung Han Kim2 , Hyeong Su Kim2 , and Hyun Joo Jang1

1Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Hwaseong, and 2Division of Hematology-Oncology, Hallym University Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to:Hyeong Su Kim
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0553-9008
E-mail nep2n@hallym.or.kr
Hyun Joo Jang
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4424-1968
E-mail jhj1229@hallym.or.kr

Received: August 4, 2020; Revised: September 21, 2020; Accepted: October 27, 2020

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Gut and Liver 2021; 15(5): 732-741

Published online September 15, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl20249

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Background/Aims: The diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease with negative ileocolonoscopic findings has been challenging. Fecal calprotectin (FC) has been used to detect colonic inflammation, but its efficacy for detecting small bowel inflammation is less established. We performed an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FC to detect active small bowel inflammation observed during capsule endoscopy.
Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search for studies that evaluated the correlation between small bowel inflammation and FC in patients with suspected/established Crohn’s disease. We calculated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) and constructed hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves for FC cutoffs of 50, 100, and 200 μg/g.
Results: Fourteen studies were eligible for the final analysis. The DORs of all FC cutoffs were significant. The highest DOR was observed at 100 μg/g (sensitivity, 0.73; specificity, 0.73; and DOR, 7.89) and was suggested as the optimal diagnostic cutoff. If we analyzed only studies that included patients with suspected Crohn’s disease, the DOR was 8.96. If we analyzed only studies that included patients with a Lewis score ≥135 as a diagnostic criterion for active disease, the DOR was 10.90.
Conclusions: FC has significant diagnostic accuracy for detecting small bowel inflammation, and an FC cutoff of 100 μg/g can be used as a tool to screen for small bowel Crohn’s disease.

Keywords: Biomarker, Capsule endoscopy, Fecal calprotectin, Small bowel Crohn&rsquo,s disease

Crohn’s disease is a chronic inflammatory disorder that is usually accompanied by anemia, bloody stool, and weight loss.1 The presence of these symptoms is necessary to differentiate Crohn’s disease from irritable bowel syndrome, with which Crohn’s disease shares other symptoms such as abdominal pain, diarrhea, and bloating. It is difficult to differentiate Crohn’s disease from irritable bowel syndrome in the absence of alarm symptoms. The small bowel is the most frequently involved site for Crohn’s disease in both Asian (72.8% to 91.7%)2-4 and Western populations (41% to 60.2%).5-10 Ileocolonoscopy with biopsy is the gold standard to differentiate Crohn’s disease from irritable bowel syndrome, but diagnosis can be challenging if ileocolonic manifestations are absent.11 Therefore, biomarkers to detect small bowel inflammation are being widely investigated.

Fecal calprotectin (FC) is a 36-kDa protein secreted from stimulated neutrophils,12 and it can be used to distinguish inflammatory bowel disease from functional gastrointestinal disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome.13,14 In a meta-analysis of eight studies, a FC level of ≤40 μg/g excluded the likelihood that a patient had inflammatory bowel disease.15

Although FC can identify patients with small bowel inflammation, gastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, or small bowel capsule endoscopy are needed to correlate the diagnosis.16 The predictive value of FC is well established in patients with colonic involvement of Crohn’s disease,17 and the addition of small bowel capsule endoscopy has been confirmed in several studies using inflammatory indices such as a Lewis score.16,18-25 Recent prospective studies have suggested that FC can be used as a screening tool before patients undergo capsule endoscopy;26-30 however, these studies have been limited by sample size and statistical power. Therefore, we conducted an updated meta-analysis to provide pooled diagnostic accuracy and a cutoff value of FC for the diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease.

1. Literature searching strategy

A comprehensive literature search was performed on June 8, 2020, using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library. This was a systematic review conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).31 We conducted a broad search using the terms “fecal calprotectin” and “capsule endoscopy” to capture as many number of citations as possible. Two authors (E.S.J. and H.J.J.) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of all articles from the initial search and then reviewed the full text of articles of the most interest. An independent evaluator (J.H.K.) resolved any disagreements.

2. Selection criteria

We included studies that met the following criteria: (1) the focus was FC and small bowel capsule endoscopy; (2) the design included randomized-controlled trials, open-label prospective studies, observational studies, or case-control studies; (3) the patients were undergoing evaluation for suspected Crohn’s disease or reassessment of Crohn’s disease activity;32,33 (4) there were 35 or more cases; and (5) full-text publications in English. We excluded studies that evaluated suspected small bowel malignancy or obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

3. Methodological quality assessment

To evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used. Review Manager 5.4.0 (The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK) was used to generate the summary figure of QUADAS-2 results.

4. Data extraction, primary outcome, and additional analyses

For each study, the number of true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative results were extracted for FC level cutoffs of 50, 100, and 200 μg/g as available in each study.

The primary outcome of this study was diagnostic accuracy of FC to identify small bowel Crohn’s disease or to find active inflammation of the small intestine in established Crohn’s disease. The diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease was made by the criteria used in the original studies.

We also assessed the effects of the following covariates on the results: (1) study design (prospective vs retrospective); (2) study indication (suspected Crohn’s disease vs Crohn’s disease reassessment); (3) exclusion of patients with abnormal ileocolonoscopy; (4) definition of Crohn’s disease (clinical vs capsule endoscopy); (5) diagnostic criteria for Crohn’s disease (Lewis score ≥135); and (6) bias assessment.

5. Statistical analysis

We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), using only direct test comparisons. To quantify heterogeneity, the I2 statistic was used. A value of more than 50% was used as a threshold for high heterogeneity. Because of high heterogeneity, the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model was applied.

A bivariate model was used to assess the relationship between pooled sensitivity and false-positive rates.34 The model’s parameter estimates were used to acquire hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and a 95% prediction region, defining the sensitivity and false-positive rate values within which we may expect the results of a future study results to lie. An estimated area under the curve (AUC) was used to measure test accuracy. Analyses were carried out using the meta35 and mada36 packages in R version 4.0.2 and Review Manager 5.4.0.

1. Study selection

We identified 147 studies through the database search and manual searches. After removing 61 duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 81 articles were screened. A further 57 articles were removed, and we then reviewed the full text of 24 studies. Ten of these were removed, and 14 studies were finally included in the systematic review (Fig. 1).16,18-30

Figure 1.Study flow diagram.
FC, fecal calprotectin.

2. Study characteristics

There were eight prospective studies20,22,25-30 and six retrospective studies16,18,19,21,23,24 (Table 1). Three studies included patients evaluated for reassessment of Crohn’s disease;21,22,26 nine studies included patients with suspected Crohn’s diseases;16,18-20,23,24,27-29 and two studies included both patient groups.25,30 Most studies included patients with negative ileocolonoscopies,16,18-20,23-29 although three studies were not applicable due to lack of information.21,22,30 Two studies used clinical diagnosis,16,20 but 12 studies used capsule endoscopy-based diagnosis.18,19,21-30 Twelve studies had a low risk of bias16,18,20-26,28-30 although the bias risks of two studies were unclear.19,27

Table 1. Summary of Data from the Included Studies

Author (year)Study designIndicationNo. of patientsNegative ileo-colonoscopyCE modelDiagnostic
standard
Diagnostic criteria for CDCountryRisk of bias
Koulaouzidis et al. (2011)16RetrospectiveSuspected CD67YesPillcam
Mirocam
ClinicalClinicalUKLow
Jensen et al. (2011)20ProspectiveSuspected CD83YesPillcamClinicalClinicalDenmarkLow
Sipponen et al. (2012)25ProspectiveSuspected CD (n=77)
CD reassessment (n=7)
84YesPillcam
Mirocam
CEMore than three ulcers on CEFinlandLow
Kopylov et al. (Jan 2015)21RetrospectiveCD reassessment106NAPillcam
Mirocam
Olympus
CELS ≥135 for active diseaseCanada, Sweden, UKLow
Olsen et al. (2015)24RetrospectiveSuspected CD50YesPillcamCECharacteristic CE findingsNorwayLow
Egea Valenzuela et al. (2015)19RetrospectiveSuspected CD68YesNot specifiedCECharacteristic CE findingsSpainUnclear
Kopylov et al. (Sep 2015)22ProspectiveCD reassessment52NAPillcamCELS ≥135 for active diseaseIsraelLow
Egea-Valenzuela et al. (2016)18RetrospectiveSuspected CD124YesPillcamCECharacteristic CE findingsSpainLow
Hale et al. (2016)28ProspectiveSuspected CD146YesPillcam
Mirocam
CEMore than three ulcers on CEUKLow
Bar-Gil Shitrit et al. (2017)27ProspectiveSuspected CD68YesPillcamCEMore than three ulcers on CEIsraelUnclear
Aggarwal et al. (2017)26ProspectiveCD reassessment43YesOlympusCELS ≥135 for active diseaseAustraliaLow
Kopylov et al. (2018)29ProspectiveSuspected CD64YesPillcamCELS ≥135 for active diseaseCanadaLow
Yousuf et al. (2018)30ProspectiveSuspected CD
CD reassessment
64NAPillcamCELS ≥135 for active diseaseIrelandLow
Monteiro et al. (2018)23RetrospectiveSuspected CD75YesPillcamCELS ≥135 for active diseasePortugalLow

CD, Crohn’s disease; CE, capsule endoscopy; LS, Lewis score; NA, not applicable.



3. Diagnostic accuracy of the 50 μg/g FC level

We assessed 10 studies with a total of 794 patients to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FC with a cutoff value of 50 μg/g (Fig. 2). This cutoff had a sensitivity of 83% (95% CI, 74% to 90%); specificity of 50% (95% CI, 36% to 64%); and DOR of 5.52 (95% CI, 3.31 to 9.19) (Table 2). The partial AUC of the HSROC was 0.81 (Fig. 2).

Table 2. Diagnostic Accuracy of FC for the Detection of Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease through Capsule Endoscopy

FC cutoffNo. of studiesNo. of patientsSensitivity (95% CI)Specificity (95% CI)DOR (95% CI)AUCPartial AUC
50 µg/g107940.831 (0.740–0.895)0.502 (0.359–0.644)5.517 (3.313–9.186)0.7740.810
100 µg/g129610.725 (0.657–0.784)0.728 (0.622–0.814)7.894 (4.315–14.440)0.7630.722
200 µg/g75940.495 (0.361–0.629)0.882 (0.738–0.952)7.205 (2.681–19.366)0.6700.579

FC, fecal calprotectin; CI, confidence interval; DOR, diagnostic odds ratio; AUC, area under the curve.



Figure 2.Forest plot and HSROC curve showing the diagnostic accuracy of a fecal calprotectin cutoff of 50 µg/g for detecting small bowel Crohn’s disease.
TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative; CI, confidence interval; HSROC, hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve.

4. Diagnostic accuracy of the 100 μg/g FC level

We assessed 12 studies with 961 patients to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FC with a cutoff value of 100 μg/g (Fig. 3). At this level, FC had a sensitivity of 73% (95% CI, 66% to 78%); specificity of 73% (95% CI, 62% to 81%); and DOR of 7.89 (95% CI, 4.32 to 14.44) (Table 2). The partial AUC of the HSROC was 0.72 (Fig. 3).

Figure 3.Forest plot and HSROC curve showing the diagnostic accuracy of a fecal calprotectin cutoff of 100 µg/g for detecting small bowel Crohn’s disease.
TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative; CI, confidence interval; HSROC, hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve.

5. Diagnostic accuracy of the 200 μg/g FC level

We assessed seven studies with 594 patients to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FC with a cutoff value of 200 μg/g (Fig. 4). At this level, FC had a sensitivity of 50% (95% CI, 36% to 63%); specificity of 88% (95% CI, 74% to 95%); and DOR of 7.21 (95% CI, 2.68 to19.37) (Table 2). The partial AUC of the HSROC was 0.58 (Fig. 4).

Figure 4.Forest plot and HSROC curve showing the diagnostic accuracy of a fecal calprotectin cutoff of 200 µg/g for detecting small bowel Crohn’s disease.
TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative; CI, confidence interval; HSROC, hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve.

6. Subgroup analyses

Although partial AUC with a 50 μg/g cutoff was the highest, the specificity at this level was relatively low. The difference between the partial AUC of cutoff levels of 100 μg/g and 50 μg/g was not large; moreover, the specificity and DOR was relatively high at 100 μg/g. Therefore, 100 μg/g was considered an optimal cutoff value. Subsequent subgroup analyses were only performed at the 100 μg/g level.

In the subgroup analyses, results remained statistically significant except in the studies that reassessed Crohn’s disease (Table 3). The prospective studies had a sensitivity of 0.68 and specificity of 0.73 (DOR of 7.52). The retrospective studies had a sensitivity of 0.78 and specificity of 0.67 (DOR of 8.41). The studies for patients with suspected Crohn’s disease had a sensitivity of 0.75 and specificity of 0.74 (DOR of 8.96). The studies that included only patients with normal ileocolonoscopies had a sensitivity of 0.76 and specificity of 0.75 (DOR of 10.07). The studies for patients with active disease that used a Lewis score of 135 or higher as a diagnostic criterion had a sensitivity of 0.72 and specificity of 0.81 (DOR of 10.90).

Table 3. Diagnostic Accuracy of Fecal Calprotectin for the Detection of Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease through Capsule Endoscopy by Subgroup Analyses

SubgroupNo. of studiesNo. of patientsSensitivity (95% CI)Specificity (95% CI)DOR (95% CI)
Prospective75210.675 (0.568–0.767)0.728 (0.622–0.814)7.518 (3.574–15.814)
Retrospective54400.776 (0.713–0.828)0.667 (0.497–0.803)8.406 (2.831–24.958)
Suspected CD86960.746 (0.678–0.805)0.735 (0.624–0.823)8.961 (5.260–15.266)
CD reassessment32010.730 (0.552–0.855)0.836 (0.173–0.992)13.941 (0.657–259.924)
Negative ileocolonoscopy97390.757 (0.692–0.811)0.750 (0.639–0.835)10.065 (5.589–18.125)
CE118940.719 (0.654–0.776)0.743 (0.625–0.833)7.375 (4.015–13.546)
LS ≥135 for active disease64040.718 (0.616–0.802)0.806 (0.579–0.926)10.898 (3.024–39.276)
Low risk of bias108250.718 (0.629–0.788)0.754 (0.625–0.849)8.955 (4.181–19.180)

CI, confidence interval; DOR, diagnostic odds ratio; CD, Crohn’s disease; CE, capsule endoscopy; LS, Lewis score.



7. Bias assessment of included studies

The QUADAS-2 assessment is summarized in Fig. 5. The included studies were of good quality and had a low risk of bias.

Figure 5.Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 for evaluating methodology quality.

Our study demonstrated a strong correlation between FC levels and active inflammation in the small bowel as diagnosed by small bowel capsule endoscopy. The diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease with a normal ileocolonoscopy is challenging. To address this issue, cross-sectional imaging techniques such as computed tomographic enterography or magnetic resonance enterography are used, although these techniques have less sensitivity for detecting subtle mucosal inflammation in the small bowel.37-39 Small bowel capsule endoscopy is a preferred method for detecting small bowel inflammation, but it is not readily available, is expensive, and presents a risk of small bowel obstruction;40 therefore, biomarkers such as FC have become an inexpensive and simple screening tool.

FC is a useful surrogate marker to detect bowel inflammation and to diagnose and monitor patients with inflammatory bowel diseases.22,41-45 Mosli et al.42 reported that endoscopic activity in symptomatic patients with inflammatory bowel diseases could be detected by FC with a pooled sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84 to 0.90) and specificity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.79). Another recent meta-analysis showed that an FC cutoff of 150 μg/g could be used to detect a postoperative endoscopic recurrence of Crohn’s disease (pooled sensitivity was 0.70 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.81], specificity 0.69 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.77], and DOR 0.92 [95% CI, 2.61 to 12.17]).46

Researchers disagree on whether FC can accurately detect intestinal inflammation in both the small and large bowels. Some studies report that FC can detect Crohn’s disease throughout the intestinal tract,20,47 but others have suggested a lower degree of accuracy for diagnosis in the small intestine.19,48 The preferred FC cutoff value to detect small bowel inflammation is also unresolved. A recent meta-analysis of seven studies with 463 patients suggested that an FC level of 50 μg/g could detect small bowel Crohn’s disease.49 However, this study was limited because it only included a small number of studies and only three prospective studies.

Our pooled data indicate that an FC cutoff of 100 μg/g is associated with optimal diagnostic accuracy for active small bowel inflammation. When we compared three FC cutoff levels, a higher level was generally associated with decreasing sensitivity and increasing specificity (Fig. 6). Although the sensitivity of the 50 μg/g cutoff was the highest among the three cutoffs, the specificity was relatively low (0.50). A cutoff of 100 μg/g had relatively high sensitivity and specificity among the three measurements. Moreover, the DOR for a 100 μg/g cutoff was higher than the 50 μg/g cutoff. Therefore, we suggest that an FC cutoff of 100 μg/g has the most advantageous screening value for small bowel inflammation.

Figure 6.Graph of sensitivities and specificities from three fecal calprotectin cutoffs (50, 100, and 200 µg/g).

Our meta-analysis study has some limitations. We included retrospective studies along with prospective studies because of the low number of available studies. If we looked at only the eight prospective studies that were included, the DOR was still significant. Furthermore, an indication of capsule endoscopy and diagnostic criteria of Crohn’s disease on small bowel capsule endoscopy were not identical. Our subgroup analyses showed that an FC cutoff of 100 μg/g had significant accuracy in diagnosing suspected Crohn’s disease but was not significant for reassessing Crohn’s disease; however, we only had three studies that reassessed Crohn’s disease, and the DOR was affected by the results of one study. The findings would have been significant if more studies were included. In another subgroup analysis, FC with a cutoff of 100 μg/g was significant in the studies using a Lewis score of 135 or higher as diagnostic criteria for active disease.

Despite these limitations, and to the best of our knowledge, our meta-analysis study on the diagnostic accuracy of FC for small bowel inflammation includes the largest number of studies correlating FC and small bowel inflammation on capsule endoscopy.

In conclusion, an FC cutoff of 100 μg/g had the highest diagnostic accuracy and could be used as a screening tool to detect small bowel Crohn’s disease.


No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.


Conception and design of the study: E.S.J., H.J.J. Data collection: E.S.J., J.H.K., H.J.J. Statistical analysis: E.S.J., H.S.K., H.J.J. Interpretation of data: E.S.J., S.P.L., S.H.K., H.S.K. Writing of the draft manuscript: E.S.J. Approval of the final version of the manuscript: H.S.K., H.J.J. Supervision: H.S.K., H.J.J.

  1. Torres J, Mehandru S, Colombel JF, Peyrin-Biroulet L. Crohn's disease. Lancet 2017;389:1741-1755.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Abdul-Baki H, ElHajj I, El-Zahabi LM, et al. Clinical epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease in Lebanon. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2007;13:475-480.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Park SH, Kim YJ, Rhee KH, et al. A 30-year trend analysis in the epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease in the Songpa-Kangdong District of Seoul, Korea in 1986-2015. J Crohns Colitis 2019;13:1410-1417.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Baik SH, Park KJ, Lee KY, et al. Characteristic phenotypes in Korean Crohn's disease patients who underwent intestinal surgery for the treatment. J Korean Med Sci 2013;28:575-579.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  5. Gower-Rousseau C, Vasseur F, Fumery M, et al. Epidemiology of inflammatory bowel diseases: new insights from a French population-based registry (EPIMAD). Dig Liver Dis 2013;45:89-94.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Nuij VJ, Zelinkova Z, Rijk MC, et al. Phenotype of inflammatory bowel disease at diagnosis in the Netherlands: a population-based inception cohort study (the Delta Cohort). Inflamm Bowel Dis 2013;19:2215-2222.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Sjöberg D, Holmström T, Larsson M, et al. Incidence and clinical course of Crohn's disease during the first year: results from the IBD Cohort of the Uppsala Region (ICURE) of Sweden 2005-2009. J Crohns Colitis 2014;8:215-222.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Lapidus A. Crohn's disease in Stockholm County during 1990-2001: an epidemiological update. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12:75-81.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  9. Vind I, Riis L, Jess T, et al. Increasing incidences of inflammatory bowel disease and decreasing surgery rates in Copenhagen City and County, 2003-2005: a population-based study from the Danish Crohn colitis database. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:1274-1282.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Björnsson S, Jóhannsson JH. Inflammatory bowel disease in Iceland, 1990-1994: a prospective, nationwide, epidemiological study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;12:31-38.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Van Assche G, Dignass A, Panes J, et al. The second European evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn's disease: definitions and diagnosis. J Crohns Colitis 2010;4:7-27.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Basso D, Zambon CF, Plebani M. Inflammatory bowel diseases: from pathogenesis to laboratory testing. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:471-481.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Lichtenstein GR, Loftus EV, Isaacs KL, Regueiro MD, Gerson LB, Sands BE. ACG clinical guideline: management of Crohn's disease in Adults. Am J Gastroenterol 2018;113:481-517.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Sipponen T. Diagnostics and prognostics of inflammatory bowel disease with fecal neutrophil-derived biomarkers calprotectin and lactoferrin. Dig Dis 2013;31:336-344.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Menees SB, Powell C, Kurlander J, Goel A, Chey WD. A meta-analysis of the utility of C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, fecal calprotectin, and fecal lactoferrin to exclude inflammatory bowel disease in adults with IBS. Am J Gastroenterol 2015;110:444-454.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Koulaouzidis A, Douglas S, Rogers MA, Arnott ID, Plevris JN. Fecal calprotectin: a selection tool for small bowel capsule endoscopy in suspected IBD with prior negative bi-directional endoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011;46:561-566.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Kallel L, Ayadi I, Matri S, et al. Fecal calprotectin is a predictive marker of relapse in Crohn's disease involving the colon: a prospective study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;22:340-345.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Egea Valenzuela J, Pereñíguez López A, Pérez Fernández V, Alberca de Las Parras F, Carballo Álvarez F. Fecal calprotectin and C-reactive protein are associated with positive findings in capsule endoscopy in suspected small bowel Crohn's disease. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2016;108:394-400.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Egea-Valenzuela J, Alberca-de-Las-Parras F, Carballo-Álvarez F. Fecal calprotectin as a biomarker of inflammatory lesions of the small bowel seen by videocapsule endoscopy. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2015;107:211-214.
    Pubmed
  20. Jensen MD, Kjeldsen J, Nathan T. Fecal calprotectin is equally sensitive in Crohn's disease affecting the small bowel and colon. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011;46:694-700.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Kopylov U, Nemeth A, Koulaouzidis A, et al. Small bowel capsule endoscopy in the management of established Crohn's disease: clinical impact, safety, and correlation with inflammatory biomarkers. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2015;21:93-100.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Kopylov U, Yablecovitch D, Lahat A, et al. Detection of small bowel mucosal healing and deep remission in patients with known small bowel Crohn's disease using biomarkers, capsule endoscopy, and imaging. Am J Gastroenterol 2015;110:1316-1323.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Monteiro S, Barbosa M, Cúrdia Gonçalves T, et al. Fecal calprotectin as a selection tool for small bowel capsule endoscopy in suspected Crohn's disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2018;24:2033-2038.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Olsen PA, Fossmark R, Qvigstad G. Fecal calprotectin in patients with suspected small bowel disease: a selection tool for small bowel capsule endoscopy? Scand J Gastroenterol 2015;50:272-277.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Sipponen T, Haapamäki J, Savilahti E, et al. Fecal calprotectin and S100A12 have low utility in prediction of small bowel Crohn's disease detected by wireless capsule endoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2012;47:778-784.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  26. Aggarwal V, Day AS, Connor S, et al. Role of capsule endoscopy and fecal biomarkers in small-bowel Crohn's disease to assess remission and predict relapse. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;86:1070-1078.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  27. Bar-Gil Shitrit A, Koslowsky B, Livovsky DM, et al. A prospective study of fecal calprotectin and lactoferrin as predictors of small bowel Crohn's disease in patients undergoing capsule endoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2017;52:328-333.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  28. Hale MF, Drew K, McAlindon ME, Sidhu R. The diagnostic accuracy of faecal calprotectin and small bowel capsule endoscopy and their correlation in suspected isolated small bowel Crohn's disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;28:1145-1150.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Kopylov U, Starr M, Watts C, Dionne S, Girardin M, Seidman EG. Detection of Crohn disease in patients with spondyloarthropathy: the SpACE Capsule Study. J Rheumatol 2018;45:498-505.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  30. Yousuf H, Aleem U, Egan R, Maheshwari P, Mohamad J, McNamara D. Elevated faecal calprotectin levels are a reliable non-invasive screening tool for small bowel Crohn's disease in patients undergoing capsule endoscopy. Dig Dis 2018;36:202-208.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  31. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:264-269.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  32. Cotter J, Dias de Castro F, Magalhães J, Moreira MJ, Rosa B. Validation of the Lewis score for the evaluation of small-bowel Crohn's disease activity. Endoscopy 2015;47:330-335.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  33. Fireman Z, Mahajna E, Broide E, et al. Diagnosing small bowel Crohn's disease with wireless capsule endoscopy. Gut 2003;52:390-392.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  34. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:982-990.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  35. Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health 2019;22:153-160.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  36. Doebler P, Holling H. Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy with mada [Internet]. Cran.r-project.org; c2015[cited 2020 Nov 23].
    Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mada/vignettes/mada.pdf.
  37. Kopylov U, Klang E, Yablecovitch D, et al. Magnetic resonance enterography versus capsule endoscopy activity indices for quantification of small bowel inflammation in Crohn's disease. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2016;9:655-663.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  38. Choi M, Lim S, Choi MG, Shim KN, Lee SH. Effectiveness of capsule endoscopy compared with other diagnostic modalities in patients with small bowel Crohn's disease: a meta-analysis. Gut Liver 2017;11:62-72.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  39. Hilmi I, Kobayashi T. Capsule endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease: when and how. Intest Res 2020;18:265-274.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  40. Annese V, Daperno M, Rutter MD, et al. European evidence based consensus for endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis 2013;7:982-1018.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  41. Lobatón T, López-García A, Rodríguez-Moranta F, Ruiz A, Rodríguez L, Guardiola J. A new rapid test for fecal calprotectin predicts endoscopic remission and postoperative recurrence in Crohn's disease. J Crohns Colitis 2013;7:e641-e651.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  42. Mosli MH, Zou G, Garg SK, et al. C-reactive protein, fecal calprotectin, and stool lactoferrin for detection of endoscopic activity in symptomatic inflammatory bowel disease patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2015;110:802-819.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  43. Sood R, Gracie DJ, Law GR, Ford AC. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the accuracy of diagnosing irritable bowel syndrome with symptoms, biomarkers and/or psychological markers. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2015;42:491-503.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  44. Turner D, Leach ST, Mack D, et al. Faecal calprotectin, lactoferrin, M2-pyruvate kinase and S100A12 in severe ulcerative colitis: a prospective multicentre comparison of predicting outcomes and monitoring response. Gut 2010;59:1207-1212.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  45. Simon EG, Wardle R, Thi AA, Eldridge J, Samuel S, Moran GW. Does fecal calprotectin equally and accurately measure disease activity in small bowel and large bowel Crohn's disease? A systematic review. Intest Res 2019;17:160-170.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  46. Tham YS, Yung DE, Fay S, et al. Fecal calprotectin for detection of postoperative endoscopic recurrence in Crohn's disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2018;11:1756284818785571.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  47. Stawczyk-Eder K, Eder P, Lykowska-Szuber L, et al. Is faecal calprotectin equally useful in all Crohn's disease locations? A prospective, comparative study. Arch Med Sci 2015;11:353-361.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  48. Zittan E, Kelly OB, Gralnek IM, Silverberg MS, Hillary Steinhart A. Fecal calprotectin correlates with active colonic inflammatory bowel disease but not with small intestinal Crohn's disease activity. JGH Open 2018;2:201-206.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  49. Kopylov U, Yung DE, Engel T, et al. Fecal calprotectin for the prediction of small-bowel Crohn's disease by capsule endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;28:1137-1144.
    Pubmed CrossRef

Article

Original Article

Gut and Liver 2021; 15(5): 732-741

Published online September 15, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl20249

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Fecal Calprotectin for the Detection of Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease through Capsule Endoscopy: An Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Eun Suk Jung1 , Sang Pyo Lee1 , Sea Hyub Kae1 , Jung Han Kim2 , Hyeong Su Kim2 , and Hyun Joo Jang1

1Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Hwaseong, and 2Division of Hematology-Oncology, Hallym University Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to:Hyeong Su Kim
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0553-9008
E-mail nep2n@hallym.or.kr
Hyun Joo Jang
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4424-1968
E-mail jhj1229@hallym.or.kr

Received: August 4, 2020; Revised: September 21, 2020; Accepted: October 27, 2020

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background/Aims: The diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease with negative ileocolonoscopic findings has been challenging. Fecal calprotectin (FC) has been used to detect colonic inflammation, but its efficacy for detecting small bowel inflammation is less established. We performed an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FC to detect active small bowel inflammation observed during capsule endoscopy.
Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search for studies that evaluated the correlation between small bowel inflammation and FC in patients with suspected/established Crohn’s disease. We calculated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) and constructed hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves for FC cutoffs of 50, 100, and 200 μg/g.
Results: Fourteen studies were eligible for the final analysis. The DORs of all FC cutoffs were significant. The highest DOR was observed at 100 μg/g (sensitivity, 0.73; specificity, 0.73; and DOR, 7.89) and was suggested as the optimal diagnostic cutoff. If we analyzed only studies that included patients with suspected Crohn’s disease, the DOR was 8.96. If we analyzed only studies that included patients with a Lewis score ≥135 as a diagnostic criterion for active disease, the DOR was 10.90.
Conclusions: FC has significant diagnostic accuracy for detecting small bowel inflammation, and an FC cutoff of 100 μg/g can be used as a tool to screen for small bowel Crohn’s disease.

Keywords: Biomarker, Capsule endoscopy, Fecal calprotectin, Small bowel Crohn&rsquo,s disease

INTRODUCTION

Crohn’s disease is a chronic inflammatory disorder that is usually accompanied by anemia, bloody stool, and weight loss.1 The presence of these symptoms is necessary to differentiate Crohn’s disease from irritable bowel syndrome, with which Crohn’s disease shares other symptoms such as abdominal pain, diarrhea, and bloating. It is difficult to differentiate Crohn’s disease from irritable bowel syndrome in the absence of alarm symptoms. The small bowel is the most frequently involved site for Crohn’s disease in both Asian (72.8% to 91.7%)2-4 and Western populations (41% to 60.2%).5-10 Ileocolonoscopy with biopsy is the gold standard to differentiate Crohn’s disease from irritable bowel syndrome, but diagnosis can be challenging if ileocolonic manifestations are absent.11 Therefore, biomarkers to detect small bowel inflammation are being widely investigated.

Fecal calprotectin (FC) is a 36-kDa protein secreted from stimulated neutrophils,12 and it can be used to distinguish inflammatory bowel disease from functional gastrointestinal disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome.13,14 In a meta-analysis of eight studies, a FC level of ≤40 μg/g excluded the likelihood that a patient had inflammatory bowel disease.15

Although FC can identify patients with small bowel inflammation, gastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, or small bowel capsule endoscopy are needed to correlate the diagnosis.16 The predictive value of FC is well established in patients with colonic involvement of Crohn’s disease,17 and the addition of small bowel capsule endoscopy has been confirmed in several studies using inflammatory indices such as a Lewis score.16,18-25 Recent prospective studies have suggested that FC can be used as a screening tool before patients undergo capsule endoscopy;26-30 however, these studies have been limited by sample size and statistical power. Therefore, we conducted an updated meta-analysis to provide pooled diagnostic accuracy and a cutoff value of FC for the diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Literature searching strategy

A comprehensive literature search was performed on June 8, 2020, using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library. This was a systematic review conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).31 We conducted a broad search using the terms “fecal calprotectin” and “capsule endoscopy” to capture as many number of citations as possible. Two authors (E.S.J. and H.J.J.) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of all articles from the initial search and then reviewed the full text of articles of the most interest. An independent evaluator (J.H.K.) resolved any disagreements.

2. Selection criteria

We included studies that met the following criteria: (1) the focus was FC and small bowel capsule endoscopy; (2) the design included randomized-controlled trials, open-label prospective studies, observational studies, or case-control studies; (3) the patients were undergoing evaluation for suspected Crohn’s disease or reassessment of Crohn’s disease activity;32,33 (4) there were 35 or more cases; and (5) full-text publications in English. We excluded studies that evaluated suspected small bowel malignancy or obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

3. Methodological quality assessment

To evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used. Review Manager 5.4.0 (The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK) was used to generate the summary figure of QUADAS-2 results.

4. Data extraction, primary outcome, and additional analyses

For each study, the number of true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative results were extracted for FC level cutoffs of 50, 100, and 200 μg/g as available in each study.

The primary outcome of this study was diagnostic accuracy of FC to identify small bowel Crohn’s disease or to find active inflammation of the small intestine in established Crohn’s disease. The diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease was made by the criteria used in the original studies.

We also assessed the effects of the following covariates on the results: (1) study design (prospective vs retrospective); (2) study indication (suspected Crohn’s disease vs Crohn’s disease reassessment); (3) exclusion of patients with abnormal ileocolonoscopy; (4) definition of Crohn’s disease (clinical vs capsule endoscopy); (5) diagnostic criteria for Crohn’s disease (Lewis score ≥135); and (6) bias assessment.

5. Statistical analysis

We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), using only direct test comparisons. To quantify heterogeneity, the I2 statistic was used. A value of more than 50% was used as a threshold for high heterogeneity. Because of high heterogeneity, the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model was applied.

A bivariate model was used to assess the relationship between pooled sensitivity and false-positive rates.34 The model’s parameter estimates were used to acquire hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and a 95% prediction region, defining the sensitivity and false-positive rate values within which we may expect the results of a future study results to lie. An estimated area under the curve (AUC) was used to measure test accuracy. Analyses were carried out using the meta35 and mada36 packages in R version 4.0.2 and Review Manager 5.4.0.

RESULTS

1. Study selection

We identified 147 studies through the database search and manual searches. After removing 61 duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 81 articles were screened. A further 57 articles were removed, and we then reviewed the full text of 24 studies. Ten of these were removed, and 14 studies were finally included in the systematic review (Fig. 1).16,18-30

Figure 1. Study flow diagram.
FC, fecal calprotectin.

2. Study characteristics

There were eight prospective studies20,22,25-30 and six retrospective studies16,18,19,21,23,24 (Table 1). Three studies included patients evaluated for reassessment of Crohn’s disease;21,22,26 nine studies included patients with suspected Crohn’s diseases;16,18-20,23,24,27-29 and two studies included both patient groups.25,30 Most studies included patients with negative ileocolonoscopies,16,18-20,23-29 although three studies were not applicable due to lack of information.21,22,30 Two studies used clinical diagnosis,16,20 but 12 studies used capsule endoscopy-based diagnosis.18,19,21-30 Twelve studies had a low risk of bias16,18,20-26,28-30 although the bias risks of two studies were unclear.19,27

Table 1 . Summary of Data from the Included Studies.

Author (year)Study designIndicationNo. of patientsNegative ileo-colonoscopyCE modelDiagnostic
standard
Diagnostic criteria for CDCountryRisk of bias
Koulaouzidis et al. (2011)16RetrospectiveSuspected CD67YesPillcam
Mirocam
ClinicalClinicalUKLow
Jensen et al. (2011)20ProspectiveSuspected CD83YesPillcamClinicalClinicalDenmarkLow
Sipponen et al. (2012)25ProspectiveSuspected CD (n=77)
CD reassessment (n=7)
84YesPillcam
Mirocam
CEMore than three ulcers on CEFinlandLow
Kopylov et al. (Jan 2015)21RetrospectiveCD reassessment106NAPillcam
Mirocam
Olympus
CELS ≥135 for active diseaseCanada, Sweden, UKLow
Olsen et al. (2015)24RetrospectiveSuspected CD50YesPillcamCECharacteristic CE findingsNorwayLow
Egea Valenzuela et al. (2015)19RetrospectiveSuspected CD68YesNot specifiedCECharacteristic CE findingsSpainUnclear
Kopylov et al. (Sep 2015)22ProspectiveCD reassessment52NAPillcamCELS ≥135 for active diseaseIsraelLow
Egea-Valenzuela et al. (2016)18RetrospectiveSuspected CD124YesPillcamCECharacteristic CE findingsSpainLow
Hale et al. (2016)28ProspectiveSuspected CD146YesPillcam
Mirocam
CEMore than three ulcers on CEUKLow
Bar-Gil Shitrit et al. (2017)27ProspectiveSuspected CD68YesPillcamCEMore than three ulcers on CEIsraelUnclear
Aggarwal et al. (2017)26ProspectiveCD reassessment43YesOlympusCELS ≥135 for active diseaseAustraliaLow
Kopylov et al. (2018)29ProspectiveSuspected CD64YesPillcamCELS ≥135 for active diseaseCanadaLow
Yousuf et al. (2018)30ProspectiveSuspected CD
CD reassessment
64NAPillcamCELS ≥135 for active diseaseIrelandLow
Monteiro et al. (2018)23RetrospectiveSuspected CD75YesPillcamCELS ≥135 for active diseasePortugalLow

CD, Crohn’s disease; CE, capsule endoscopy; LS, Lewis score; NA, not applicable..



3. Diagnostic accuracy of the 50 μg/g FC level

We assessed 10 studies with a total of 794 patients to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FC with a cutoff value of 50 μg/g (Fig. 2). This cutoff had a sensitivity of 83% (95% CI, 74% to 90%); specificity of 50% (95% CI, 36% to 64%); and DOR of 5.52 (95% CI, 3.31 to 9.19) (Table 2). The partial AUC of the HSROC was 0.81 (Fig. 2).

Table 2 . Diagnostic Accuracy of FC for the Detection of Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease through Capsule Endoscopy.

FC cutoffNo. of studiesNo. of patientsSensitivity (95% CI)Specificity (95% CI)DOR (95% CI)AUCPartial AUC
50 µg/g107940.831 (0.740–0.895)0.502 (0.359–0.644)5.517 (3.313–9.186)0.7740.810
100 µg/g129610.725 (0.657–0.784)0.728 (0.622–0.814)7.894 (4.315–14.440)0.7630.722
200 µg/g75940.495 (0.361–0.629)0.882 (0.738–0.952)7.205 (2.681–19.366)0.6700.579

FC, fecal calprotectin; CI, confidence interval; DOR, diagnostic odds ratio; AUC, area under the curve..



Figure 2. Forest plot and HSROC curve showing the diagnostic accuracy of a fecal calprotectin cutoff of 50 µg/g for detecting small bowel Crohn’s disease.
TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative; CI, confidence interval; HSROC, hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve.

4. Diagnostic accuracy of the 100 μg/g FC level

We assessed 12 studies with 961 patients to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FC with a cutoff value of 100 μg/g (Fig. 3). At this level, FC had a sensitivity of 73% (95% CI, 66% to 78%); specificity of 73% (95% CI, 62% to 81%); and DOR of 7.89 (95% CI, 4.32 to 14.44) (Table 2). The partial AUC of the HSROC was 0.72 (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Forest plot and HSROC curve showing the diagnostic accuracy of a fecal calprotectin cutoff of 100 µg/g for detecting small bowel Crohn’s disease.
TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative; CI, confidence interval; HSROC, hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve.

5. Diagnostic accuracy of the 200 μg/g FC level

We assessed seven studies with 594 patients to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FC with a cutoff value of 200 μg/g (Fig. 4). At this level, FC had a sensitivity of 50% (95% CI, 36% to 63%); specificity of 88% (95% CI, 74% to 95%); and DOR of 7.21 (95% CI, 2.68 to19.37) (Table 2). The partial AUC of the HSROC was 0.58 (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. Forest plot and HSROC curve showing the diagnostic accuracy of a fecal calprotectin cutoff of 200 µg/g for detecting small bowel Crohn’s disease.
TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative; CI, confidence interval; HSROC, hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve.

6. Subgroup analyses

Although partial AUC with a 50 μg/g cutoff was the highest, the specificity at this level was relatively low. The difference between the partial AUC of cutoff levels of 100 μg/g and 50 μg/g was not large; moreover, the specificity and DOR was relatively high at 100 μg/g. Therefore, 100 μg/g was considered an optimal cutoff value. Subsequent subgroup analyses were only performed at the 100 μg/g level.

In the subgroup analyses, results remained statistically significant except in the studies that reassessed Crohn’s disease (Table 3). The prospective studies had a sensitivity of 0.68 and specificity of 0.73 (DOR of 7.52). The retrospective studies had a sensitivity of 0.78 and specificity of 0.67 (DOR of 8.41). The studies for patients with suspected Crohn’s disease had a sensitivity of 0.75 and specificity of 0.74 (DOR of 8.96). The studies that included only patients with normal ileocolonoscopies had a sensitivity of 0.76 and specificity of 0.75 (DOR of 10.07). The studies for patients with active disease that used a Lewis score of 135 or higher as a diagnostic criterion had a sensitivity of 0.72 and specificity of 0.81 (DOR of 10.90).

Table 3 . Diagnostic Accuracy of Fecal Calprotectin for the Detection of Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease through Capsule Endoscopy by Subgroup Analyses.

SubgroupNo. of studiesNo. of patientsSensitivity (95% CI)Specificity (95% CI)DOR (95% CI)
Prospective75210.675 (0.568–0.767)0.728 (0.622–0.814)7.518 (3.574–15.814)
Retrospective54400.776 (0.713–0.828)0.667 (0.497–0.803)8.406 (2.831–24.958)
Suspected CD86960.746 (0.678–0.805)0.735 (0.624–0.823)8.961 (5.260–15.266)
CD reassessment32010.730 (0.552–0.855)0.836 (0.173–0.992)13.941 (0.657–259.924)
Negative ileocolonoscopy97390.757 (0.692–0.811)0.750 (0.639–0.835)10.065 (5.589–18.125)
CE118940.719 (0.654–0.776)0.743 (0.625–0.833)7.375 (4.015–13.546)
LS ≥135 for active disease64040.718 (0.616–0.802)0.806 (0.579–0.926)10.898 (3.024–39.276)
Low risk of bias108250.718 (0.629–0.788)0.754 (0.625–0.849)8.955 (4.181–19.180)

CI, confidence interval; DOR, diagnostic odds ratio; CD, Crohn’s disease; CE, capsule endoscopy; LS, Lewis score..



7. Bias assessment of included studies

The QUADAS-2 assessment is summarized in Fig. 5. The included studies were of good quality and had a low risk of bias.

Figure 5. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 for evaluating methodology quality.

DISCUSSION

Our study demonstrated a strong correlation between FC levels and active inflammation in the small bowel as diagnosed by small bowel capsule endoscopy. The diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease with a normal ileocolonoscopy is challenging. To address this issue, cross-sectional imaging techniques such as computed tomographic enterography or magnetic resonance enterography are used, although these techniques have less sensitivity for detecting subtle mucosal inflammation in the small bowel.37-39 Small bowel capsule endoscopy is a preferred method for detecting small bowel inflammation, but it is not readily available, is expensive, and presents a risk of small bowel obstruction;40 therefore, biomarkers such as FC have become an inexpensive and simple screening tool.

FC is a useful surrogate marker to detect bowel inflammation and to diagnose and monitor patients with inflammatory bowel diseases.22,41-45 Mosli et al.42 reported that endoscopic activity in symptomatic patients with inflammatory bowel diseases could be detected by FC with a pooled sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84 to 0.90) and specificity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.79). Another recent meta-analysis showed that an FC cutoff of 150 μg/g could be used to detect a postoperative endoscopic recurrence of Crohn’s disease (pooled sensitivity was 0.70 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.81], specificity 0.69 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.77], and DOR 0.92 [95% CI, 2.61 to 12.17]).46

Researchers disagree on whether FC can accurately detect intestinal inflammation in both the small and large bowels. Some studies report that FC can detect Crohn’s disease throughout the intestinal tract,20,47 but others have suggested a lower degree of accuracy for diagnosis in the small intestine.19,48 The preferred FC cutoff value to detect small bowel inflammation is also unresolved. A recent meta-analysis of seven studies with 463 patients suggested that an FC level of 50 μg/g could detect small bowel Crohn’s disease.49 However, this study was limited because it only included a small number of studies and only three prospective studies.

Our pooled data indicate that an FC cutoff of 100 μg/g is associated with optimal diagnostic accuracy for active small bowel inflammation. When we compared three FC cutoff levels, a higher level was generally associated with decreasing sensitivity and increasing specificity (Fig. 6). Although the sensitivity of the 50 μg/g cutoff was the highest among the three cutoffs, the specificity was relatively low (0.50). A cutoff of 100 μg/g had relatively high sensitivity and specificity among the three measurements. Moreover, the DOR for a 100 μg/g cutoff was higher than the 50 μg/g cutoff. Therefore, we suggest that an FC cutoff of 100 μg/g has the most advantageous screening value for small bowel inflammation.

Figure 6. Graph of sensitivities and specificities from three fecal calprotectin cutoffs (50, 100, and 200 µg/g).

Our meta-analysis study has some limitations. We included retrospective studies along with prospective studies because of the low number of available studies. If we looked at only the eight prospective studies that were included, the DOR was still significant. Furthermore, an indication of capsule endoscopy and diagnostic criteria of Crohn’s disease on small bowel capsule endoscopy were not identical. Our subgroup analyses showed that an FC cutoff of 100 μg/g had significant accuracy in diagnosing suspected Crohn’s disease but was not significant for reassessing Crohn’s disease; however, we only had three studies that reassessed Crohn’s disease, and the DOR was affected by the results of one study. The findings would have been significant if more studies were included. In another subgroup analysis, FC with a cutoff of 100 μg/g was significant in the studies using a Lewis score of 135 or higher as diagnostic criteria for active disease.

Despite these limitations, and to the best of our knowledge, our meta-analysis study on the diagnostic accuracy of FC for small bowel inflammation includes the largest number of studies correlating FC and small bowel inflammation on capsule endoscopy.

In conclusion, an FC cutoff of 100 μg/g had the highest diagnostic accuracy and could be used as a screening tool to detect small bowel Crohn’s disease.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST


No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS


Conception and design of the study: E.S.J., H.J.J. Data collection: E.S.J., J.H.K., H.J.J. Statistical analysis: E.S.J., H.S.K., H.J.J. Interpretation of data: E.S.J., S.P.L., S.H.K., H.S.K. Writing of the draft manuscript: E.S.J. Approval of the final version of the manuscript: H.S.K., H.J.J. Supervision: H.S.K., H.J.J.

Fig 1.

Figure 1.Study flow diagram.
FC, fecal calprotectin.
Gut and Liver 2021; 15: 732-741https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl20249

Fig 2.

Figure 2.Forest plot and HSROC curve showing the diagnostic accuracy of a fecal calprotectin cutoff of 50 µg/g for detecting small bowel Crohn’s disease.
TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative; CI, confidence interval; HSROC, hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve.
Gut and Liver 2021; 15: 732-741https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl20249

Fig 3.

Figure 3.Forest plot and HSROC curve showing the diagnostic accuracy of a fecal calprotectin cutoff of 100 µg/g for detecting small bowel Crohn’s disease.
TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative; CI, confidence interval; HSROC, hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve.
Gut and Liver 2021; 15: 732-741https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl20249

Fig 4.

Figure 4.Forest plot and HSROC curve showing the diagnostic accuracy of a fecal calprotectin cutoff of 200 µg/g for detecting small bowel Crohn’s disease.
TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative; CI, confidence interval; HSROC, hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve.
Gut and Liver 2021; 15: 732-741https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl20249

Fig 5.

Figure 5.Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 for evaluating methodology quality.
Gut and Liver 2021; 15: 732-741https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl20249

Fig 6.

Figure 6.Graph of sensitivities and specificities from three fecal calprotectin cutoffs (50, 100, and 200 µg/g).
Gut and Liver 2021; 15: 732-741https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl20249

Table 1 Summary of Data from the Included Studies

Author (year)Study designIndicationNo. of patientsNegative ileo-colonoscopyCE modelDiagnostic
standard
Diagnostic criteria for CDCountryRisk of bias
Koulaouzidis et al. (2011)16RetrospectiveSuspected CD67YesPillcam
Mirocam
ClinicalClinicalUKLow
Jensen et al. (2011)20ProspectiveSuspected CD83YesPillcamClinicalClinicalDenmarkLow
Sipponen et al. (2012)25ProspectiveSuspected CD (n=77)
CD reassessment (n=7)
84YesPillcam
Mirocam
CEMore than three ulcers on CEFinlandLow
Kopylov et al. (Jan 2015)21RetrospectiveCD reassessment106NAPillcam
Mirocam
Olympus
CELS ≥135 for active diseaseCanada, Sweden, UKLow
Olsen et al. (2015)24RetrospectiveSuspected CD50YesPillcamCECharacteristic CE findingsNorwayLow
Egea Valenzuela et al. (2015)19RetrospectiveSuspected CD68YesNot specifiedCECharacteristic CE findingsSpainUnclear
Kopylov et al. (Sep 2015)22ProspectiveCD reassessment52NAPillcamCELS ≥135 for active diseaseIsraelLow
Egea-Valenzuela et al. (2016)18RetrospectiveSuspected CD124YesPillcamCECharacteristic CE findingsSpainLow
Hale et al. (2016)28ProspectiveSuspected CD146YesPillcam
Mirocam
CEMore than three ulcers on CEUKLow
Bar-Gil Shitrit et al. (2017)27ProspectiveSuspected CD68YesPillcamCEMore than three ulcers on CEIsraelUnclear
Aggarwal et al. (2017)26ProspectiveCD reassessment43YesOlympusCELS ≥135 for active diseaseAustraliaLow
Kopylov et al. (2018)29ProspectiveSuspected CD64YesPillcamCELS ≥135 for active diseaseCanadaLow
Yousuf et al. (2018)30ProspectiveSuspected CD
CD reassessment
64NAPillcamCELS ≥135 for active diseaseIrelandLow
Monteiro et al. (2018)23RetrospectiveSuspected CD75YesPillcamCELS ≥135 for active diseasePortugalLow

CD, Crohn’s disease; CE, capsule endoscopy; LS, Lewis score; NA, not applicable.


Table 2 Diagnostic Accuracy of FC for the Detection of Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease through Capsule Endoscopy

FC cutoffNo. of studiesNo. of patientsSensitivity (95% CI)Specificity (95% CI)DOR (95% CI)AUCPartial AUC
50 µg/g107940.831 (0.740–0.895)0.502 (0.359–0.644)5.517 (3.313–9.186)0.7740.810
100 µg/g129610.725 (0.657–0.784)0.728 (0.622–0.814)7.894 (4.315–14.440)0.7630.722
200 µg/g75940.495 (0.361–0.629)0.882 (0.738–0.952)7.205 (2.681–19.366)0.6700.579

FC, fecal calprotectin; CI, confidence interval; DOR, diagnostic odds ratio; AUC, area under the curve.


Table 3 Diagnostic Accuracy of Fecal Calprotectin for the Detection of Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease through Capsule Endoscopy by Subgroup Analyses

SubgroupNo. of studiesNo. of patientsSensitivity (95% CI)Specificity (95% CI)DOR (95% CI)
Prospective75210.675 (0.568–0.767)0.728 (0.622–0.814)7.518 (3.574–15.814)
Retrospective54400.776 (0.713–0.828)0.667 (0.497–0.803)8.406 (2.831–24.958)
Suspected CD86960.746 (0.678–0.805)0.735 (0.624–0.823)8.961 (5.260–15.266)
CD reassessment32010.730 (0.552–0.855)0.836 (0.173–0.992)13.941 (0.657–259.924)
Negative ileocolonoscopy97390.757 (0.692–0.811)0.750 (0.639–0.835)10.065 (5.589–18.125)
CE118940.719 (0.654–0.776)0.743 (0.625–0.833)7.375 (4.015–13.546)
LS ≥135 for active disease64040.718 (0.616–0.802)0.806 (0.579–0.926)10.898 (3.024–39.276)
Low risk of bias108250.718 (0.629–0.788)0.754 (0.625–0.849)8.955 (4.181–19.180)

CI, confidence interval; DOR, diagnostic odds ratio; CD, Crohn’s disease; CE, capsule endoscopy; LS, Lewis score.


References

  1. Torres J, Mehandru S, Colombel JF, Peyrin-Biroulet L. Crohn's disease. Lancet 2017;389:1741-1755.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Abdul-Baki H, ElHajj I, El-Zahabi LM, et al. Clinical epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease in Lebanon. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2007;13:475-480.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Park SH, Kim YJ, Rhee KH, et al. A 30-year trend analysis in the epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease in the Songpa-Kangdong District of Seoul, Korea in 1986-2015. J Crohns Colitis 2019;13:1410-1417.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Baik SH, Park KJ, Lee KY, et al. Characteristic phenotypes in Korean Crohn's disease patients who underwent intestinal surgery for the treatment. J Korean Med Sci 2013;28:575-579.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  5. Gower-Rousseau C, Vasseur F, Fumery M, et al. Epidemiology of inflammatory bowel diseases: new insights from a French population-based registry (EPIMAD). Dig Liver Dis 2013;45:89-94.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Nuij VJ, Zelinkova Z, Rijk MC, et al. Phenotype of inflammatory bowel disease at diagnosis in the Netherlands: a population-based inception cohort study (the Delta Cohort). Inflamm Bowel Dis 2013;19:2215-2222.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Sjöberg D, Holmström T, Larsson M, et al. Incidence and clinical course of Crohn's disease during the first year: results from the IBD Cohort of the Uppsala Region (ICURE) of Sweden 2005-2009. J Crohns Colitis 2014;8:215-222.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Lapidus A. Crohn's disease in Stockholm County during 1990-2001: an epidemiological update. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12:75-81.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  9. Vind I, Riis L, Jess T, et al. Increasing incidences of inflammatory bowel disease and decreasing surgery rates in Copenhagen City and County, 2003-2005: a population-based study from the Danish Crohn colitis database. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:1274-1282.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Björnsson S, Jóhannsson JH. Inflammatory bowel disease in Iceland, 1990-1994: a prospective, nationwide, epidemiological study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;12:31-38.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Van Assche G, Dignass A, Panes J, et al. The second European evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn's disease: definitions and diagnosis. J Crohns Colitis 2010;4:7-27.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Basso D, Zambon CF, Plebani M. Inflammatory bowel diseases: from pathogenesis to laboratory testing. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:471-481.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Lichtenstein GR, Loftus EV, Isaacs KL, Regueiro MD, Gerson LB, Sands BE. ACG clinical guideline: management of Crohn's disease in Adults. Am J Gastroenterol 2018;113:481-517.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Sipponen T. Diagnostics and prognostics of inflammatory bowel disease with fecal neutrophil-derived biomarkers calprotectin and lactoferrin. Dig Dis 2013;31:336-344.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Menees SB, Powell C, Kurlander J, Goel A, Chey WD. A meta-analysis of the utility of C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, fecal calprotectin, and fecal lactoferrin to exclude inflammatory bowel disease in adults with IBS. Am J Gastroenterol 2015;110:444-454.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Koulaouzidis A, Douglas S, Rogers MA, Arnott ID, Plevris JN. Fecal calprotectin: a selection tool for small bowel capsule endoscopy in suspected IBD with prior negative bi-directional endoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011;46:561-566.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Kallel L, Ayadi I, Matri S, et al. Fecal calprotectin is a predictive marker of relapse in Crohn's disease involving the colon: a prospective study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;22:340-345.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Egea Valenzuela J, Pereñíguez López A, Pérez Fernández V, Alberca de Las Parras F, Carballo Álvarez F. Fecal calprotectin and C-reactive protein are associated with positive findings in capsule endoscopy in suspected small bowel Crohn's disease. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2016;108:394-400.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Egea-Valenzuela J, Alberca-de-Las-Parras F, Carballo-Álvarez F. Fecal calprotectin as a biomarker of inflammatory lesions of the small bowel seen by videocapsule endoscopy. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2015;107:211-214.
    Pubmed
  20. Jensen MD, Kjeldsen J, Nathan T. Fecal calprotectin is equally sensitive in Crohn's disease affecting the small bowel and colon. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011;46:694-700.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Kopylov U, Nemeth A, Koulaouzidis A, et al. Small bowel capsule endoscopy in the management of established Crohn's disease: clinical impact, safety, and correlation with inflammatory biomarkers. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2015;21:93-100.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Kopylov U, Yablecovitch D, Lahat A, et al. Detection of small bowel mucosal healing and deep remission in patients with known small bowel Crohn's disease using biomarkers, capsule endoscopy, and imaging. Am J Gastroenterol 2015;110:1316-1323.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Monteiro S, Barbosa M, Cúrdia Gonçalves T, et al. Fecal calprotectin as a selection tool for small bowel capsule endoscopy in suspected Crohn's disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2018;24:2033-2038.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Olsen PA, Fossmark R, Qvigstad G. Fecal calprotectin in patients with suspected small bowel disease: a selection tool for small bowel capsule endoscopy? Scand J Gastroenterol 2015;50:272-277.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Sipponen T, Haapamäki J, Savilahti E, et al. Fecal calprotectin and S100A12 have low utility in prediction of small bowel Crohn's disease detected by wireless capsule endoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2012;47:778-784.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  26. Aggarwal V, Day AS, Connor S, et al. Role of capsule endoscopy and fecal biomarkers in small-bowel Crohn's disease to assess remission and predict relapse. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;86:1070-1078.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  27. Bar-Gil Shitrit A, Koslowsky B, Livovsky DM, et al. A prospective study of fecal calprotectin and lactoferrin as predictors of small bowel Crohn's disease in patients undergoing capsule endoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2017;52:328-333.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  28. Hale MF, Drew K, McAlindon ME, Sidhu R. The diagnostic accuracy of faecal calprotectin and small bowel capsule endoscopy and their correlation in suspected isolated small bowel Crohn's disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;28:1145-1150.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Kopylov U, Starr M, Watts C, Dionne S, Girardin M, Seidman EG. Detection of Crohn disease in patients with spondyloarthropathy: the SpACE Capsule Study. J Rheumatol 2018;45:498-505.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  30. Yousuf H, Aleem U, Egan R, Maheshwari P, Mohamad J, McNamara D. Elevated faecal calprotectin levels are a reliable non-invasive screening tool for small bowel Crohn's disease in patients undergoing capsule endoscopy. Dig Dis 2018;36:202-208.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  31. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:264-269.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  32. Cotter J, Dias de Castro F, Magalhães J, Moreira MJ, Rosa B. Validation of the Lewis score for the evaluation of small-bowel Crohn's disease activity. Endoscopy 2015;47:330-335.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  33. Fireman Z, Mahajna E, Broide E, et al. Diagnosing small bowel Crohn's disease with wireless capsule endoscopy. Gut 2003;52:390-392.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  34. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:982-990.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  35. Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health 2019;22:153-160.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  36. Doebler P, Holling H. Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy with mada [Internet]. Cran.r-project.org; c2015[cited 2020 Nov 23]. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mada/vignettes/mada.pdf.
  37. Kopylov U, Klang E, Yablecovitch D, et al. Magnetic resonance enterography versus capsule endoscopy activity indices for quantification of small bowel inflammation in Crohn's disease. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2016;9:655-663.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  38. Choi M, Lim S, Choi MG, Shim KN, Lee SH. Effectiveness of capsule endoscopy compared with other diagnostic modalities in patients with small bowel Crohn's disease: a meta-analysis. Gut Liver 2017;11:62-72.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  39. Hilmi I, Kobayashi T. Capsule endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease: when and how. Intest Res 2020;18:265-274.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  40. Annese V, Daperno M, Rutter MD, et al. European evidence based consensus for endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis 2013;7:982-1018.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  41. Lobatón T, López-García A, Rodríguez-Moranta F, Ruiz A, Rodríguez L, Guardiola J. A new rapid test for fecal calprotectin predicts endoscopic remission and postoperative recurrence in Crohn's disease. J Crohns Colitis 2013;7:e641-e651.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  42. Mosli MH, Zou G, Garg SK, et al. C-reactive protein, fecal calprotectin, and stool lactoferrin for detection of endoscopic activity in symptomatic inflammatory bowel disease patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2015;110:802-819.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  43. Sood R, Gracie DJ, Law GR, Ford AC. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the accuracy of diagnosing irritable bowel syndrome with symptoms, biomarkers and/or psychological markers. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2015;42:491-503.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  44. Turner D, Leach ST, Mack D, et al. Faecal calprotectin, lactoferrin, M2-pyruvate kinase and S100A12 in severe ulcerative colitis: a prospective multicentre comparison of predicting outcomes and monitoring response. Gut 2010;59:1207-1212.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  45. Simon EG, Wardle R, Thi AA, Eldridge J, Samuel S, Moran GW. Does fecal calprotectin equally and accurately measure disease activity in small bowel and large bowel Crohn's disease? A systematic review. Intest Res 2019;17:160-170.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  46. Tham YS, Yung DE, Fay S, et al. Fecal calprotectin for detection of postoperative endoscopic recurrence in Crohn's disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2018;11:1756284818785571.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  47. Stawczyk-Eder K, Eder P, Lykowska-Szuber L, et al. Is faecal calprotectin equally useful in all Crohn's disease locations? A prospective, comparative study. Arch Med Sci 2015;11:353-361.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  48. Zittan E, Kelly OB, Gralnek IM, Silverberg MS, Hillary Steinhart A. Fecal calprotectin correlates with active colonic inflammatory bowel disease but not with small intestinal Crohn's disease activity. JGH Open 2018;2:201-206.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  49. Kopylov U, Yung DE, Engel T, et al. Fecal calprotectin for the prediction of small-bowel Crohn's disease by capsule endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;28:1137-1144.
    Pubmed CrossRef
Gut and Liver

Vol.15 No.5
September, 2021

pISSN 1976-2283
eISSN 2005-1212

qrcode
qrcode

Share this article on :

  • line

Popular Keywords

Gut and LiverQR code Download
qr-code

Editorial Office