Selected Summary

医学
作者
Dawn R. Ebach
出处
期刊:Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition [Lippincott Williams & Wilkins]
卷期号:45 (1): 135-136
标识
DOI:10.1097/mpg.0b013e31804b45f4
摘要

Summary: This is a retrospective unblinded study evaluating the use of serology (IBD First Step and Confirmatory System; Prometheus Laboratory, San Diego, CA) vs anemia and/or elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) as a screening tool in patients presenting to a single-center pediatric gastroenterology office for symptoms that were suspicious for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) such as abdominal pain, weight loss, hematochezia, arthralgias, and diarrhea. Two hundred twenty-seven charts were reviewed for patients seen during a 2-year period (September 2002–September 2004), and 210 had adequate information for inclusion. Forty of these 210 patients were ultimately diagnosed with IBD based on clinical, endoscopic, radiological, and pathological interpretations by the gastroenterologist, which resulted in a prevalence of 19% in this population. Twenty-four were diagnosed with Crohn disease, 15 with ulcerative colitis, and 1 with indeterminate colitis. In patients with proven IBD, anemia or elevated ESR was present in 33 (83%) and both were present in 19 (48%) of patients. The First Step IBD serological testing was positive in 29 (73%), with confirmatory markers positive in 24 (60%). Of the 170 patients without the diagnosis of IBD, 134 had a complete blood count and ESR during the evaluation. Only 5 patients (4%) had both anemia and elevated ESR and 35 (26%) had either anemia or elevated ESR. First Step testing was performed in 170 patients without IBD and was positive in 48 (28%), with confirmatory testing positive in 19 (11%). Therefore, the sensitivity of anemia or an elevated ESR was 83% and specificity was 74% with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 94%. The sensitivity was less for patients who had both anemia and elevated ESR, at 48%, with a higher specificity of 96% with a PPV of 86%. The First Step had a sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 72% with a PPV of only 38%. Adding the confirmatory markers (anti–Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies, anti–neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, or Escherichia coli outer membrane porin C) resulted in a sensitivity of 60%, specificity of 88%, and a PPV of 56%. On further evaluation, presenting symptoms were fairly similar between the IBD and the non-IBD group (abdominal pain in 100% of IBD and 90% in non-IBD; diarrhea in 80% of IBD and 52% of non-IBD) with the exception of rectal bleeding occurring in 70% of the IBD group and only 24% of the non-IBD group. If a patient had more than one symptom, they were more likely to have IBD (abdominal pain and rectal bleeding in 73% of IBD group and 21% of non-IBD; abdominal pain, rectal bleeding, and diarrhea in 65% of IBD and 12% of those without). Comment: The use of serological markers for the identification and classification of patients with IBD has led to some heated debates about their utility, especially in children. This debate has further expanded with the new Prometheus IBD Serology 7. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of serology vs more routine laboratory evaluation (complete blood count and ESR) as screening tools in a population of patients referred for symptoms associated with IBD. A screening test should be easy to use and cost effective. An ideal screening test should have high enough sensitivity to lead to a low false-negative rate, and a high enough specificity to prevent too many false-positive tests. The negative predictive value (NPV) should be high so that patients with disease are not missed. Previous studies evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of serological testing for predicting IBD have been in populations with high prevalence of the disease (37%–78%) (1–7). This study attempts to address the utility of serological testing in a group of patients with a lower prevalence of IBD. The sensitivity and specificity of a test should not be influenced by the prevalence of the disease in the population, but may be influenced by the population being studied (eg, patients with known disease vs a screening population or adult patients vs pediatric patients). Clinicians, including primary care providers, have been using serological testing as a screening tool in patients presenting with various complaints; however, the PPV and NPV of a test is influenced by the prevalence of the disease, and this had not been previously evaluated in a lower prevalence (ie, screening) group. Reasons to use the test include assisting in the decision to refer to a specialist and, as advocated by Prometheus, “to assess the need for scoping.” (8) Additionally, clinicians may use these tests in patients with known IBD with the goal of differentiating between Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis, especially when surgery is being considered in cases of indeterminate IBD. Prometheus states that the First Step has a sensitivity rate >94% and a specificity rate >90% (8); however, it is unclear in what population this was determined (eg, adults with known IBD) and it is unclear how this applies to the pediatric patient presenting with symptoms suggestive of IBD. This study shows a similar specificity, but the sensitivity was found to be only 60% for anti–S cerevisiae antibodies, anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, or E coli outer membrane porin C, and 73% for the First Step. Conversely, the presence of anemia or an elevated ESR was 83% sensitive, which suggests that these tests are less likely to produce a false-negative test than the IBD serological testing. The likelihood ratio for the presence of anemia or elevated ESR as a screening test for IBD is 3.2. The likelihood ratio for a positive serological test (ie, First Step) is 2.6. This suggests that a patient with anemia or elevated ESR is slightly more likely to have IBD than a patient who has a positive serological test result. The likelihood ratio for a patient without anemia or elevated ESR (ie, negative testing) is 0.002 but is 0.375 for those with a negative serological test. Therefore, absence of anemia or elevated ESR is better at ruling out IBD than a negative First Step serological test result. Drawbacks to this study include the retrospective design and the fact that the clinicians were aware of the results of the laboratory results, which may have influenced their clinical decision about diagnosis. However, further testing was undertaken to confirm the diagnosis of IBD. In addition, because these patients were followed up over time, it is implicit that patients without IBD did not develop IBD in that time period. Patients, families, and clinicians alike would like to have a simple, straightforward test that is highly sensitive and specific to determine if a disease is present. Unlike celiac disease, which has highly sensitive and specific serological tests, no such test exists for patients with IBD. It does not appear that the much more expensive serological testing adds much to the clinical diagnosis of patients presenting to the pediatric gastroenterologist with symptoms suggestive of IBD; however, it may be used as a screening (ie, not diagnostic) test given its high NPV. If used in screening, a number of false-positive tests are likely to be found given the lower PPV. Given the findings in this study, the use of serological testing should not be used for diagnosis, but may be useful on a more selective basis. Further studies exploring the role of serological screening for IBD in a primary care setting are needed to evaluate its role in a nonselected population. The clinical diagnosis (combination of history, physical, routine laboratory tests, endoscopy, radiology, and pathology) of IBD was used as the gold standard for comparison in this study and it appears that it remains as such.
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
更新
PDF的下载单位、IP信息已删除 (2025-6-4)

科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
wj完成签到,获得积分10
刚刚
iNk应助阮楷瑞采纳,获得10
1秒前
情怀应助wjx采纳,获得30
1秒前
1秒前
2秒前
哈哈哈哈发布了新的文献求助10
2秒前
哇哇哇完成签到,获得积分10
2秒前
充电宝应助樱悼柳雪采纳,获得10
2秒前
3秒前
猪哥哥发布了新的文献求助30
3秒前
疾风完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
研友_ZAxX6n发布了新的文献求助30
5秒前
冷静的斑马完成签到,获得积分10
5秒前
栓Q发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
Jsl完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
抠抠小手完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
6秒前
六斤米完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
916应助马力采纳,获得10
6秒前
7秒前
7秒前
zhaoyali发布了新的文献求助10
8秒前
8秒前
爆米花应助鲤鱼安青采纳,获得10
9秒前
周周发布了新的文献求助10
9秒前
CC完成签到,获得积分10
9秒前
9秒前
曳尘应助野原顶不住采纳,获得20
9秒前
10秒前
李爱国应助孙夕然采纳,获得30
11秒前
12秒前
bkagyin应助SHD采纳,获得10
12秒前
魔幻擎宇发布了新的文献求助10
13秒前
研友_ZAxX6n完成签到,获得积分20
13秒前
Han发布了新的文献求助10
14秒前
wang发布了新的文献求助10
15秒前
15秒前
可爱的函函应助中宝采纳,获得10
15秒前
888886kn完成签到,获得积分20
15秒前
Muhammad完成签到,获得积分10
17秒前
高分求助中
Picture Books with Same-sex Parented Families: Unintentional Censorship 700
ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 12th edition 500
Nucleophilic substitution in azasydnone-modified dinitroanisoles 500
不知道标题是什么 500
Indomethacinのヒトにおける経皮吸収 400
Phylogenetic study of the order Polydesmida (Myriapoda: Diplopoda) 370
Effective Learning and Mental Wellbeing 300
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 工程类 有机化学 生物化学 物理 内科学 纳米技术 计算机科学 化学工程 复合材料 遗传学 基因 物理化学 催化作用 冶金 细胞生物学 免疫学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 3974856
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 3519400
关于积分的说明 11198085
捐赠科研通 3255563
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1797860
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 877208
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 806219