| Title |
Fecal calprotectin: a marker for clinical differentiation of microscopic colitis and irritable bowel syndrome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ceg.s97701 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ulrike von Arnim, Thomas Wex, Christine Ganzert, Christian Schulz, Peter Malfertheiner |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study is to compare two methods for measuring fecal calprotectin (FC) concentration and to evaluate the possibility of differentiation between microscopic colitis (MC) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Twenty-three patients with MC (six patients with active disease and 17 patients retested in remission) and 20 patients with IBS were prospectively included in this study. Active disease state of MC was determined by clinical symptoms of >3 bowel movements per day and histological correlate. All patients underwent ileocolonoscopy, including segmental biopsy samples for histology. FC levels in stool samples were analyzed using a rapid test system (Quantum Blue(®)) and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). FC levels were significantly higher in patients with active MC (median 48 μg/g [23-106]) compared to patients with IBS (median 2 μg/g [1-111.83]), P=0.0001 using an ELISA. FC level of patients with MC in remission was 22 μg/g (1-106.4), which is similar to those identified in patients with IBS. The difference of FC levels between active MC and IBS was not detected by the FC rapid test (P=0.635). FC levels might serve as parameter for differentiation between patients with active MC and IBS. Since there is no surrogate marker available at present for MC, FC appears to be a candidate for differentiating MC from IBS. High FC levels, which were analyzed by ELISA, are a potential marker for patients with active MC compared to those with IBS. The FC rapid test was less suitable for this purpose. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 22% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 19% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 51% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 June 2016.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#279
of 331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,855
of 314,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 331 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,719 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.