MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2052695085 · doi:10.1002/ibd.3780050317

Are serological tests for IBD useful to clinicians?

2007· article· en· W2052695085 sur OpenAlexaff
Ernest G. Seidman

Notice bibliographique

RevueInflammatory Bowel Diseases · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCeliac Disease Research and Management
Établissements canadiensUniversité de Montréal
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSerologyMedicineInflammatory Bowel DiseasesImmunologyInflammatory bowel diseaseInternal medicineDiseaseAntibody

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae mannan antibodies combined with antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies in inflammatory bowel disease: prevalence and diagnostic role. Quinton JF, Sendid B, Reumaux D, Duthilleul P, Cortot A, Grandbastien B, Charrier G, Targan SR, Colombel JF, Poulain D. Gut 1998;42:788-91. Perinuclear antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies (pANCA) have become established as a marker of ulcerative colitis (UC). More recently, antibodies to oligomannosidic epitopes of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae (ASCA) have been the focus of much interest as a marker of Crohn's disease (CD). The authors assessed the diagnostic value of detecting pANCA and/or ASCA for the diagnosis of UC and CD. The study population consisted of 100 adult patients with CD, 101 with UC, 27 with various other diarrheal disorders, and 163 healthy controls. The combination of a positive pANCA and negative ASCA tests yielded a sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values of 57, 97 and 92.5%, respectively, for UC. The combination of a positive ASCA and negative pANCA tests yielded 49, 97, and 92.5% for the same parameters. Using multivariate analysis, ASCA in CD was found to be associated with small bowel involvement. The authors concluded that ASCA and pANCA are strongly associated with CD and UC, respectively. Comment: The article by Quinton et al. raises the question as to the clinical usefulness and role for serological tests in IBD. Most clinicians would argue that they are certainly capable of diagnosing IBD using the gold standard combination of radiological, endoscopic, and histologic criteria. What then is the place for these antibody assays? There is no doubt that in many cases, especially those that are the most severely affected, an experienced clinician can make a diagnosis of IBD on the basis of the history and physical examination alone. In such instances, we carry out colonoscopies and barium studies to provide histological confirmation and for determining the extent of involvement. Do experienced clinicians need serological assays in their diagnostic armamentarium? In my opinion, I would say yes. The answer to my rhetorical question is based on the diagnostic accuracy of the tests in question. In UC, pANCA have been reported to be present in 40-80% of cases, with a high degree of disease specificity (Gastroenterology 1991;100: 1590-6; Gastroenterology 1998;115:822-9). Similarly, ASCA has been reported to be 64% sensitive and 77% specific for discriminating CD from UC and 89% specific for distinguishing CD from controls (Clin Diag Lab Immunol 1996;3:219-26). The results of the present study thus confirm previous reports. A recent study found similar results for the diagnostic accuracy of ASCA and pANCA in pediatric IBD patients (Gastroenterology 1998;115:822-9). In the present and the pediatric study, the sensitivity of ASCA in patients with CD restricted to the colon was 45 and 47%, respectively. However, in the latter study, “double ASCA positivity” (IgG and IgA titers) was 100% specific for CD (Gastroenterology 1998;115:822-9). In the above study by Quinton and colleagues, it is not clear whether ASCA positivity related to IgG only, or to other isotypes as well. These findings have important clinical implications with respect to differentiating CD from UC in patients with colitis, or for cases of “indeterminate colitis.” CD patients with a “UC-like” presentation are often pANCA positive (Gastroenterology 1996;110:1810-9). Therefore, only the presence of ASCA can truly be considered specific for CD. In the above study by Quinton et al., pANCA negative/ASCA positive results were 97% specific and had a 96% positive predictive value for CD, whereas pANCA positive/ASCA negative assays were 97% specific and 92.5% predictive value positive for UC. In view of the disparate prognosis after colectomy in UC vs. CD, the data thus suggest that ASCA and pANCA testing should be carried out prior to elective “curative” surgery for UC. In many cases, the diagnosis of IBD is delayed due to nonspecific presenting complaints. Reliable screening tests would be potentially helpful in these circumstances, allowing the clinician to expedite the diagnosis. Furthermore, a high negative predictive value of serological tests would potentially avoid unnecessary, more-invasive and costly testing. In the study by Quinton et al. the negative predictive value of ASCA for CD was 94.5%. However, it is not at all clear that the study was carried out prospectively. Nor did all patients have symptoms potentially consistent with IBD. On the contrary, all but 27 of the 190 non-IBD control patients were healthy individuals who had no gastrointestinal symptoms or family history of IBD. Furthermore, the clinical value of any test is overestimated when the prevalence of the disease in the population studied is artificially high, such as in the above report (201 of 391 patients studied had IBD). Further prospective studies using ASCA thus need to be carried out in patients with gastrointestinal complaints so that the true diagnostic accuracy of this very promising test can be established.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,038

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,078
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,003
Communication savante0,0030,006
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,049
Tête enseignante GPT0,362
Écart entre enseignants0,312 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revueInflammatory Bowel DiseasesMême sujetCeliac Disease Research and ManagementTravaux en français237 207