2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2015.06.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The diagnostic usefulness of fecal lactoferrin in the assessment of Crohn's disease activity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
7
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…On this basis, the short-, medium-and long-term targets were defined for CD treatment. These are discussed in detail in the recommendations regarding the induction and maintenance treatment [67][68][69][70][71].…”
Section: Optimal Assessment Ofmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On this basis, the short-, medium-and long-term targets were defined for CD treatment. These are discussed in detail in the recommendations regarding the induction and maintenance treatment [67][68][69][70][71].…”
Section: Optimal Assessment Ofmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The usefulness of FL in the prediction of endoscopically active disease in the colon has been recently confirmed in a study on 101 patients, reporting 84.6% sensitivity and 60.5% specificity ( p = 0.0347), with PPV of 42% and NPV of 92% at a concentration of 145.82 μg/mL [42]. A good correlation of FL with endoscopic scores was shown only in 5 out of 15 studies (Table 2) [9, 10, 39, 41, 43].…”
Section: Stool Markers and Endoscopic Activitymentioning
confidence: 97%
“…After screening 5,303 publications, we identified 21 eligible studies 20,28,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] reporting on 27 diagnostic models for the prediction of ileocolonic endoscopic activity and/or EH in patients with Crohn's disease (Figure 1 and Supplementary Material 3).…”
Section: Systematic Literature Searchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Authors from these studies were contacted, and extra information was provided by the authors of four studies 28,34,37,45 representing five models. In total, 20 models could not be externally validated, because: 1) ten models 35,39,40,42,44,48 did not provide sufficient detail to allow external validation, 2) six models 31,34,37,45,46 included investigational biomarkers, 3) four models 33,38,41,49 used predictors not available in the TAILORIX and/or UAI dataset (Supplementary material 12). Nonetheless, seven models 20,28,32,36,41,43,47 could be externally validated: six models in the TAILORIX dataset, and five models in the UAI dataset (obviously, the UAI model was not validated in its own development dataset).…”
Section: Models In-and Excluded For External Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%