http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5249-6592
Figures
Abstract
Background
Diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in primary care (PC) is challenging and associated with a considerable diagnostic delay. Using a calprotectin test for any PC patient with abdominal complaints would cause significant costs. The 8-item-questionnaire CalproQuest was developed to increase the pre-test probability for a positive Calprotectin. It is a feasible instrument to assess IBD in PC, but has not yet been evaluated in clinical routine. This study, therefore, aimed to validate whether the CalproQuest increases pretest-probability for a positive fecal Calprotectin.
Methods
Prospective diagnostic trial. The CalproQuest consists of 4 major and 4 minor questions suggestive for IBD. It is considered positive if ≥ 2 major or 1 major and 2 minor criteria are positive. Primary outcome: Sensitivity and specificity of the CalproQuest for Calprotectin levels ≥ 50 μg/g and for positive IBD diagnosis among patients referred to endoscopic evaluation at secondary care level. Secondary finding: Patient-reported diagnostic delay.
Results
156 patients from 7 study centers had a complete CalproQuest and fecal Calprotectin test. The sensitivity and specificity of CalproQuest for Calprotectin ≥ 50 μg/g was 36% and 57%. The sensitivity and specificity of the CalproQuest for positive IBD diagnosis was 37% and 67%. The diagnostic delay was 61 months (SD 125.2).
Conclusion
In this prospective diagnostic study, the sensitivity and specificity of CalproQuest for Calprotectin levels ≥ 50 μg/g and positive IBD diagnosis were poor. Additional prospective studies concerning the ideal cut-off values, validity and cost-effectiveness of a combined use with the Calprotectin test in the PC setting are necessary.
Citation: Chmiel C, Senn O, Hasler S, Rosemann T, Rogler G, Zahnd N, et al. (2019) Can the CalproQuest predict a positive Calprotectin test? A prospective diagnostic study. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224961
Editor: Yan Li, Cleveland Clinic, UNITED STATES
Received: November 14, 2018; Accepted: October 25, 2019; Published: November 21, 2019
Copyright: © 2019 Chmiel et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This project is supported by grants from the IBDnet, Swiss Research and Communication Network on Inflammatory Bowel Disease, and the “Gottfried und Julia Bangerter-Rhyner-Stiftung”, fund of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences. The funding sources had no role in the design of this study and will not have any role during its execution, analyses, interpretation of the data, or decision to submit results.
Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Abbreviations: CalproQuest, 8-item-questionnaire to increase pretest-probability for a positive test result of the fecal Calprotectin test; CD, Crohn’s Disease; GP, General Practitioner; IBD, Inflammatory Bowel Disease; IBS, Irritable bowel syndrome; IC, Indeterminate colitis; UC, Ulcerative colitis
Introduction
The estimated prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), consisting of Crohn’s Disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC) and indeterminate colitis (IC) [1], is 0.2% in the western world [2]. Hence, it is not surprising that physicians are often faced with the diagnostic challenge to differentiate patients with IBD from functional gastrointestinal disorders, namely irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), based on its much higher prevalence estimated at 10–15% [3]. These challenges are reflected in the considerable diagnostic delay of IBD [1], associated with a significantly increased risk of morbidity and mortality [4]. Although IBS-like symptoms are frequently reported in patients before IBD is diagnosed [5], it is not useful that every patient undergoes an invasive endoscopic examination. As an intermediary diagnostic approach the fecal Calprotectin has been shown to reflect intestinal inflammation in patients with known IBD [6–12] and to differentiate IBD from IBS, depending on the cut-off value used. [13–16] Nevertheless, the Calprotectin test is not routinely performed in primary care (PC). The pre-test probability would be very low if a Calprotectin test would be used in all patients with abdominal complaints [17, 18]. A further problem is the low specificity of the test (many possible differential diagnoses for a positive Calprotectin test besides IBD such as esophagitis, gastritis, gastric ulcers, celiac disease, benign or malignant polyps and cancer, infectious gastroenteritis/colitis, diverticulitis, microscopic and ischemic colitis, NSAR enteropathy, lactose intolerance) and relatively high costs (currently about 60 Euros). Systematic data regarding the use of fecal Calprotectin test especially in PC are lacking.
To increase pretest-probability for a positive test result of the fecal Calprotectin test aiming at diagnosing IBD in an earlier stage, we developed an 8-item-questionnaire: the CalproQuest [19]. The CalproQuest has been shown to be a feasible instrument for the assessment of IBD in PC, but has not yet been evaluated clinically [20]. This study aims to prospectively validate the CalproQuest concerning sensitivity and specificity for positive fecal Calprotectin test results and positive IBD diagnosis.
Materials and methods
Ethics, trial registration, informed consent
- Ethics: The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Kanton Zurich (reference KEK-ZH-number 2013–0516).
- The study protocol conforms to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki as reflected in a prior approval by the institution’s human research committee.
- Trial registration number: ISRCTN66310845.
- Written informed consent was obtained from each patient included in the study.
Study design
This study is a part of the prospective diagnostic ALERT trial (VAlidation of an 8-item-questionnaire predictive for a positive caLprotectin tEst and Real-life implemenTation in primary care to reduce diagnostic delay in IBD), consisting of two independent parts A and B, conducted by gastroenterologists (GEs) (A) and general practitioners (GPs) (B). The details of the study design, including recruitment of patients and physicians, administration of patient records, informed consent, confidentiality have been published previously [19]. In part B of the ALERT Trial, the CalproQuest has been shown to be a feasible instrument for the assessment of IBD in PC [20]. Patients included in the current study were referred to GEs for endoscopic evaluation with any indication. The study design including the study flow is depicted in Fig 1.
Neg = negative; Pos = positive; IBD = Inflammatory bowel disease.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria:
- ≥18 years
- Referral to GE for colonoscopy with any indication
- Informed consent
Exclusion criteria:
- Known abdominal pathologies besides known IBD, e.g. cancer
Procedure (see also Fig 1)
- Patients referred to the GE for colonoscopy due to any reason were included into the study (besides in- and exclusion criteria)
- Patients were subjected to CalproQuest prior to endoscopy
- Patients obtained fecal samples to measure Calprotectin levels
- Colonoscopy was performed to obtain diagnosis
- Patients with an IBD diagnosis were asked to complete a questionnaire investigating duration of first onset of symptoms to IBD diagnosis (diagnostic delay)
CalproQuest
CalproQuest is an 8-item IBD-questionnaire consisting of 4 major and 4 minor questions suggestive for IBD (Table 1). The CalproQuest has been shown to be a feasible instrument for the assessment of IBD in PC [20]. The original questionnaire used in our study (German language) can be seen in supporting information (S1 File). The CalproQuest is considered positive, if ≥ 2 major criteria or 1 major criterion and 2 minor criteria are answered positively. We assumed that a positive CalproQuest result might predict calprotectin levels ≥ 50 μg/g. Calprotectin levels above 50 μg/g are indicative for active intestinal inflammation and call for further endoscopic examination.
Fecal calprotectin
Fecal calprotectin levels were measured at the University Hospital Zurich. Specimens from other study centers were sent to the laboratory by mail. The Calprotectin test is called EliA Calprotectin (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Uppsala, Sweden) and uses the FEIA method (fluorescence enzyme immunoassay) on a fully automated system called Phadia 100 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Uppsala, Sweden). The EliA Calprotectin Wells are coated with monoclonal antibodies to calprotectin. If present in the patient’s specimen, calprotectin binds to the coated antibodies. After washing away non-bound components, enzyme-labeled antibodies against human calprotectin (EliACalprotectin Conjugate) are added to form a calprotectin-conjugate complex. After incubation, non-bound conjugate is washed away and the bound complex is incubated with a Development Solution. After stopping the reaction, the fluorescence in the reaction mixture is measured. The higher the response value, the more calprotectin is present in the specimen. To evaluate test results, the response for patient samples is compared directly to the response for calibrators.
Diagnostic delay
Three time intervals of diagnostic delay were assessed retrospectively in a patient questionnaire (S2 File in German language): Interval 1: Time from first IBD-related symptoms to first consultation with a physician. Interval 2: Time from the first physician visit to referral to GE: Interval 3: Time from first IBD symptoms to IBD diagnosis (interval 1+2): This interval is defined as diagnostic delay and describes time span from first symptoms to IBD diagnosis.
Primary and secondary outcomes
Primary outcomes:
- Sensitivity and specificity of CalproQuest for a positive Calprotectin test result ≥ 50 μg/g feces
- Sensitivity and specificity of CalproQuest for a positive Calprotectin test result ≥ 50 μg/g feces and positive IBD-diagnosis.
Secondary finding:
- Patient-reported diagnostic delay
Statistical analysis
A data set was considered complete if a patient completed both the CalproQuest and the Calprotectin test. The sensitivity and specificity calculation of CalproQuest is based on confidence intervals. P<0.05 is considered statistically significant. The sample size was calculated according to Flahault et al. [21]. Assuming a 0.05 two-sided significance level, n = 162 would have 90% power to detect a sensitivity and specificity of 90% of CalproQuest for a calprotectin level ≥ 50 μg/g feces, or for a calprotectin level ≥ 50 μg/g feces and a positive IBD diagnosis. For the purpose of this calculation, the expected sensitivity and specificity are 90% with a lower acceptable limit of sensitivity of 70%. Assumed prevalence of IBD within the sample was 20%. A p<0.05 is considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed with R (R version 3.3.2) [22].
Results
Population
Recruitment of GEs started in October 2014 and ended after completion of the necessary dataset in January 2017. Recruitment was undertaken by means of information events as well as mailings and personal contacts of the involved team. Therefore, no actual non-responder list was compiled. The study flow can be appreciated in Fig 1.
From the 191 eligible patients in 7 study centers, 188 remained for analysis meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 156 had a complete CalproQuest as well as a Calprotectin test (Fig 1 and Table 2). The centers recruited between 3 and 19 patients. The details of the study population are listed in Table 2. 150 endoscopic results were available for analysis, of which 80 hat an IBD diagnosis (54 active, 24 in remission). 21 endoscopies showed other diagnoses (e.g. diverticulitis, diverticulosis, etc.). 49 endoscopies showed no pathological findings.
Primary outcome: Validation of CalproQuest
The sensitivity and specificity of CalproQuest for fecal Calprotectin levels ≥ 50 μg/g was 36% and 57% (n = 156). Positive IBD diagnosis was defined as endoscopic diagnosis of active CD or UC or IC (n = 54). The sensitivity and specificity of the CalproQuest for positive IBD diagnosis was 37% and 67% (Fig 2).
TP = true positive, TN = true negative, FP = false positive, FN = false negative, PPV = Positive Predictive Value = TP/(TP+FP), NPV = Negative Predictive Value = TN/(FN+TN), Sensitivity = TP/ (TP+FN), Specificity = TN/(FP+TN), IBD = Inflammatory bowel disease.
Fig 3 shows the sensitivity and specificity of CalproQuest depending on different Calprotectin levels and on whether the diagnosis of IBD was assessed in a first or follow up endoscopy.
No association was found between the sensitivity and specifity of the CalproQuest with different Calprotectin levels or with the endoscopy being performed for the first time or as a follow up endoscopy.
Secondary finding: Patient-reported diagnostic delay
The mean time from first IBD related symptoms to first consultation with a physician (Interval 1) was 6 months (SD 16.3). The mean reported time from the first physician visit to referral to a gastroenterologist (Interval 2) was 19 months (SD 58.6). The diagnostic delay (= time from first IBD symptoms to IBD diagnosis (Interval 3 = Interval 1+2)) was 61 months (SD 125.2).
Discussion
In this prospective diagnostic study, the sensitivity and specificity of CalproQuest, an 8-item IBD-questionnaire consisting of 4 major and 4 minor questions, for fecal Calprotectin levels ≥ 50 μg/g as well as positive IBD diagnosis were poor.
The CalproQuest has been shown to be a feasible instrument for the assessment of IBD in PC care [20]. In the current prospective diagnostic study, the CalproQuest is for the first time evaluated clinically. The question arises why the results turned out poor. In current literature, very few studies exist evaluating the use of questionnaires to aid GP’s ruling out IBD, hence it is difficult to compare our results. Danese et al. [23] published a 21-item questionnaire, which was developed by means of a systematic literature review in which CD specialists identified “red flags”, i.e. symptoms or signs suggestive of CD. However, this questionnaire was not yet tested for feasibility in PC and has not yet been prospectively validated. As Holtman et al. [24] have stated correctly, low prevalence of IBD and lack of uniform reference standards in PC induce methodological challenges to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of a test. In Switzerland only about 7% of patients consult their GP due to gastrointestinal complaints [25], of which only a minority (0.2%) is diagnosed with IBD [2], whereas the prevalence of IBS is estimated at 10–15% [3]. In order to achieve the necessary power to estimate the sensitivity and specifity of the CalproQuest in the PC setting, more than 2000 patients would have had to be recruited, due to the low prevalence of gastrointestinal complaints in PC. In the current study, we therefore decided to estimate the diagnostic performance of the CalproQuest at secondary care, i.e. among the GEs. By recruiting 156 patients with a complete data set (complete CalproQuest and Calprotectin), we nearly achieved the targeted number of 163 patients, based on the power calculation. Taking into consideration that the active IBD prevalence in our study population was 34.6%, i.e. substantially higher than the 20% as estimated in the power calculation [19], the power was actually more than achieved. The mediocre diagnostic accuracy of the CalproQuest for a positive Calprotectin therefore represents a true finding and cannot be explained by the study design. A possible explanation for the poor results might lie in the diagnostic accuracy of the fecal calprotectin test itself and the low cut-off value of 50 μg/g chosen in our study. Although testing for fecal calprotectin has been shown to be a helpful diagnostic tool for IBD in tertiary care and especially as a follow-up parameter (13–16), it remains unclear whether its widespread use for diagnostic rather than follow-up purposes in primary and secondary care is appropriate. The fecal calprotectin test was not validated in the low prevalence setting of PC [26] and has diverse differential diagnoses for a positive result besides IBD, which renders its utility even more unclear in a low prevalence setting. Recently published studies in the PC setting have shown a doubtful benefit of the calprotectin test in diagnosing IBD in PC [27], whereas other non-invasive markers, such as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), showed far better results in detecting colorectal cancer, high-risk adenomas and IBD [28], [29]. Also in the pediatric PC setting recent findings indicate that the fecal calprotectin test may not be as helpful as assumed from specialist care: A positive fecal calprotectin result in children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms was not likely to be indicative of IBD [30]. It seems reasonable that the cut-off value has to be reconsidered for this low prevalence setting, in order to increase utility of a positive calprotectin test (positive predictive value) [27], as suggested in studies among patients with an intermediate raised fecal calprotectin in a ‘real-world’ setting [31–33]. A negative calprotectin tests seems to have certain utility in ruling out IBD in PC [34, 35]. In addition, the questionable cost-effectiveness of a widespread use in a patient population with unspecific complaints has to be taken into consideration.
Strengths and limitations
A clear strength of this study is its clinical relevance: as a secondary finding, the diagnostic delay was confirmed to be substantial and hence comparable with previous studies. [1, 4] Since this substantial diagnostic delay is clearly associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality [4], studies like this one tackling the issue how to timely diagnose these patients are of utmost importance.
Certain limitations have to be taken into consideration: As mentioned above, in order to achieve the necessary power to estimate sensitivity and specificity of the CalproQuest in the GP setting, more than 2000 patients would have had to be recruited, due to this low prevalence of gastrointestinal complaints in PC. In the current study, we therefore chose to estimate the diagnostic performance of the CalproQuest at secondary care level, i.e. among GEs. In addition, there is evidence for great variability in the concentrations of calprotectin in stool samples collected during a single day with increasing variability of concentrations in longer storage periods [36]. Since our study protocol did not predefine a specific storage time, our study results could have been negatively influenced. Since 15% the patients in the study took non-steroidal anti rheumatics, which are known to increase fecal Calprotectin levels, our findings could have been influenced [37]. Since the exact and cumulative dosages of medication intake was not known, further sub-analyses are not possible to correct for this confounding element.
In summary, the poor predictive power for the CalproQuest might possibly be improved to reach a major diagnostic power by means of the following measures: more specific instructions concerning stool sampling procedure, especially concerning storage time, the use of another potentially better fecal test, than the Calprotectin, such as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), the use of a higher cut of level of the Calprotectin, and finally testing in the PC rather the secondary care setting with a larger sample size.
Conclusion
In this prospective diagnostic study, the sensitivity and specificity of CalproQuest for fecal Calprotectin levels ≥ 50 μg/g as well as positive IBD diagnosis were poor. Additional prospective studies concerning the ideal cut-off values, validity and cost-effectiveness of a combined use with the Calprotectin test in the PC setting are necessary.
Supporting information
S1 File. CalproQuest.
Questionnaire for the early detection of inflammatory bowel disease (German language).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224961.s001
(DOCX)
S2 File. Diagnostic delay.
Questionnaire on patient history for patients suffering from Cohn’s disease or colitis ulcerosa (German language).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224961.s002
(DOCX)
S3 File. Study protocol Ethics.
Ethics consent.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224961.s003
(PDF)
S1 Table. TREND Checklist.
Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224961.s004
(DOCX)
S1 Fig. CONSORT flow Diagram.
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224961.s006
(DOC)
Acknowledgments
We cordially thank all the participating centers, especially the involved study nurses and the recruiting gastroenterologists, for their contribution and work.
References
- 1. Vavricka SR, Spigaglia SM, Rogler G, Pittet V, Michetti P, Felley C, et al. Systematic evaluation of risk factors for diagnostic delay in inflammatory bowel disease. Inflammatory bowel diseases. 2012;18(3):496–505. pmid:21509908.
- 2. Juillerat P, Pittet V, Bulliard JL, Guessous I, Antonino AT, Mottet C, et al. Prevalence of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the Canton of Vaud (Switzerland): A population-based cohort study. Journal of Crohn’s & colitis. 2008;2(2):131–41. pmid:21172203.
- 3.
Guideline WGOG. Irritable bowel syndrome: a global perspective http://www.worldgastroenterology.org/assets/downloads/en/pdf/guidelines/20_irritable_bowel_syndrome.pdf. 2009.
- 4. Schoepfer AM, Dehlavi MA, Fournier N, Safroneeva E, Straumann A, Pittet V, et al. Diagnostic delay in Crohn’s disease is associated with a complicated disease course and increased operation rate. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2013;108(11):1744–53; quiz 54. Epub 2013/08/28. pmid:23978953.
- 5. Bercik P, Verdu EF, Collins SM. Is irritable bowel syndrome a low-grade inflammatory bowel disease? Gastroenterology clinics of North America. 2005;34(2):235–45, vi–vii. pmid:15862932.
- 6. Costa F, Mumolo MG, Ceccarelli L, Bellini M, Romano MR, Sterpi C, et al. Calprotectin is a stronger predictive marker of relapse in ulcerative colitis than in Crohn’s disease. Gut. 2005;54(3):364–8. pmid:15710984
- 7. D’Haens G, Ferrante M, Vermeire S, Baert F, Noman M, Moortgat L, et al. Fecal calprotectin is a surrogate marker for endoscopic lesions in inflammatory bowel disease. Inflammatory bowel diseases. 2012;18(12):2218–24. pmid:22344983.
- 8. Limburg PJ, Ahlquist DA, Sandborn WJ, Mahoney DW, Devens ME, Harrington JJ, et al. Fecal calprotectin levels predict colorectal inflammation among patients with chronic diarrhea referred for colonoscopy. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2000;95(10):2831–7. pmid:11051356.
- 9. Lin JF, Chen JM, Zuo JH, Yu A, Xiao ZJ, Deng FH, et al. Meta-analysis: fecal calprotectin for assessment of inflammatory bowel disease activity. Inflammatory bowel diseases. 2014;20(8):1407–15. pmid:24983982.
- 10. Roseth AG, Fagerhol MK, Aadland E, Schjonsby H. Assessment of the neutrophil dominating protein calprotectin in feces. A methodologic study. Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology. 1992;27(9):793–8. pmid:1411288.
- 11. Schoepfer AM, Beglinger C, Straumann A, Trummler M, Vavricka SR, Bruegger LE, et al. Fecal calprotectin correlates more closely with the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s disease (SES-CD) than CRP, blood leukocytes, and the CDAI. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2010;105(1):162–9. Epub 2009/09/17. pmid:19755969.
- 12. Schoepfer AM, Beglinger C, Straumann A, Trummler M, Renzulli P, Seibold F. Ulcerative colitis: correlation of the Rachmilewitz endoscopic activity index with fecal calprotectin, clinical activity, C-reactive protein, and blood leukocytes. Inflammatory bowel diseases. 2009;15(12):1851–8. Epub 2009/05/23. pmid:19462421.
- 13. Otten CM, Kok L, Witteman BJ, Baumgarten R, Kampman E, Moons KG, et al. Diagnostic performance of rapid tests for detection of fecal calprotectin and lactoferrin and their ability to discriminate inflammatory from irritable bowel syndrome. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine: CCLM /FESCC. 2008;46(9):1275–80. pmid:18597588.
- 14. Schoepfer AM, Trummler M, Seeholzer P, Seibold-Schmid B, Seibold F. Discriminating IBD from IBS: comparison of the test performance of fecal markers, blood leukocytes, CRP, and IBD antibodies. Inflammatory bowel diseases. 2008;14(1):32–9. pmid:17924558.
- 15. Tibble JA, Sigthorsson G, Foster R, Forgacs I, Bjarnason I. Use of surrogate markers of inflammation and Rome criteria to distinguish organic from nonorganic intestinal disease. Gastroenterology. 2002;123(2):450–60. pmid:12145798.
- 16. van Rheenen PF, Van de Vijver E, Fidler V. Faecal calprotectin for screening of patients with suspected inflammatory bowel disease: diagnostic meta-analysis. Bmj. 2010;341:c3369. pmid:20634346
- 17. Mansson J, Nilsson G, Strender LE, Bjorkelund C. Reasons for encounters, investigations, referrals, diagnoses and treatments in general practice in Sweden—a multicentre pilot study using electronic patient records. The European journal of general practice. 2011;17(2):87–94. pmid:21599555.
- 18. Moth G, Olesen F, Vedsted P. Reasons for encounter and disease patterns in Danish primary care: changes over 16 years. Scandinavian journal of primary health care. 2012;30(2):70–5. pmid:22643150
- 19. Hasler S, Zahnd N, Muller S, Vavricka S, Rogler G, Tandjung R, et al. VAlidation of an 8-item-questionnaire predictive for a positive caLprotectin tEst and Real-life implemenTation in primary care to reduce diagnostic delay in inflammatory bowel disease (ALERT): protocol for a prospective diagnostic study. BMJ Open. 2015;5(3):e007306. pmid:25757949
- 20. Chmiel C, Vavricka SR, Hasler S, Rogler G, Zahnd N, Schiesser S, et al. Feasibility of an 8-item questionnaire for early diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease in primary care. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 0(0). pmid:30324695
- 21. Flahault A, Cadilhac M, Thomas G. Sample size calculation should be performed for design accuracy in diagnostic test studies. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2005;58(8):859–62. pmid:16018921
- 22.
R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing V, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org.
- 23. Danese S, Fiorino G, Mary JY, Lakatos PL, D’Haens G, Moja L, et al. Development of Red Flags Index for Early Referral of Adults with Symptoms and Signs Suggestive of Crohn’s Disease: An IOIBD Initiative. Journal of Crohn’s & colitis. 2015;9(8):601–6. pmid:25908718.
- 24. Holtman GA, Lisman-van Leeuwen Y, Kollen BJ, Escher JC, Kindermann A, Rheenen PF, et al. Challenges in diagnostic accuracy studies in primary care: the fecal calprotectin example. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:179. pmid:24274463
- 25. Chmiel C, Bhend H, Senn O, Zoller M, Rosemann T, study-group F. The FIRE project: a milestone for research in primary care in Switzerland. Swiss medical weekly. 2011;140:w13142. pmid:21279858.
- 26. Holtman GA, Lisman-van Leeuwen Y, Kollen BJ, Escher JC, Kindermann A, van Rheenen PF, et al. Challenges in diagnostic accuracy studies in primary care: the fecal calprotectin example. Bmc Family Practice. 2013;14. pmid:24274463
- 27. Conroy S, Hale MF, Cross SS, Swallow K, Sidhu RH, Sargur R, et al. Unrestricted faecal calprotectin testing performs poorly in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease in patients in primary care. J Clin Pathol. 2017. pmid:28844038.
- 28. Hogberg C, Karling P, Rutegard JO, Lilja M. Diagnosing colorectal cancer and inflammatory bowel disease in primary care: The usefulness of tests for faecal haemoglobin, faecal calprotectin, anaemia and iron deficiency. A prospective study. Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology. 2017;52(1):69–75. pmid:27623716
- 29. Mowat C, Digby J, Strachan JA, Wilson R, Carey FA, Fraser CG, et al. Faecal haemoglobin and faecal calprotectin as indicators of bowel disease in patients presenting to primary care with bowel symptoms. Gut. 2016;65(9):1463–9. pmid:26294695
- 30. Holtman GA, Lisman-van Leeuwen Y, Kollen BJ, Norbruis OF, Escher JC, Kindermann A, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Fecal Calprotectin for Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Primary Care: A Prospective Cohort Study. Ann Fam Med. 2016;14(5):437–45. pmid:27621160
- 31. McFarlane M, Chambers S, Malik A, Lee B, Sung E, Nwokolo C, et al. Clinical outcomes at 12 months and risk of inflammatory bowel disease in patients with an intermediate raised fecal calprotectin: a ‘real-world’ view. BMJ Open. 2016;6(6). pmid:27266773
- 32. Turvill J, O’Connell S, Brooks A, Bradley-Wood K, Laing J, Thiagarajan S, et al. Evaluation of a faecal calprotectin care pathway for use in primary care. Prim Health Care Res. 2016;17(5):428–36. pmid:26899214
- 33. Pavlidis P, Chedgy FJQ, Tibble JA. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical application of faecal calprotectin in adult patients presenting with gastrointestinal symptoms in primary care. Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology. 2013;48(9):1048–54. pmid:23883068
- 34. Waugh N, Cummins E, Royle P, Kandala NB, Shyangdan D, Arasaradnam R, et al. Faecal calprotectin testing for differentiating amongst inflammatory and non-inflammatory bowel diseases: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Asses. 2013;17(55):1–+. pmid:24286461
- 35. Kok L, Elias SG, Witteman BJM, Goedhard JG, Muris JWM, Moons KGM, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-Care Fecal Calprotectin and Immunochemical Occult Blood Tests for Diagnosis of Organic Bowel Disease in Primary Care: The Cost-Effectiveness of a Decision Rule for Abdominal Complaints in Primary Care (CEDAR) Study. Clinical chemistry. 2012;58(6):989–98. pmid:22407858
- 36. Lasson A, Stotzer PO, Ohman L, Isaksson S, Sapnara M, Strid H. The intra-individual variability of faecal calprotectin: a prospective study in patients with active ulcerative colitis. Journal of Crohn’s & colitis. 2015;9(1):26–32. pmid:25008478.
- 37. Maiden L, Thjodleifsson B, Theodors A, Gonzalez J, Bjarnason I. A quantitative analysis of NSAID-Induced small bowel pathology by capsule enteroscopy. Gastroenterology. 2005;128(5):1172–8. pmid:15887101