4.7 Article

Accuracy of the serum intestinal fatty-acid-binding protein for diagnosis of acute intestinal ischemia: a meta-analysis

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep34371

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Foundation of Research Center for Surgical Clinical Nutrition in Yun-Nan Province
  2. Professor Yang Hua Research Station in Yun-Nan Province
  3. National Natural Science Fund [81160114]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Numerous studies have investigated the utility of serum intestinal fatty-acid binding protein (I-FABP) in differentiating acute intestinal ischemia from acute abdomen. However, the results remain controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to determine the overall accuracy of serum I-FABP in the diagnosis of acute intestinal ischemia. Publications addressing the accuracy of serum I-FABP in the diagnosis of ischemic bowel diseases were selected from databases. The values of true-positive (TP), true-negative (TN), false-positive (FP), and false-negative (FN) were extracted or calculated for each study. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated. The overall diagnostic performance was assessed using a summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) and area under curve (AUC). Nine studies that collectively included 1246 patients met the eligible criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, and NLR were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72-0.86), 0.85 (95% CI: 0.73-0.93), 24 (95% CI: 9-65), 5.5 (95% CI: 2.8-10.8) and 0.23 (95% CI: 0.15-0.35), respectively. The AUC was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89). The meta-analysis carried out in this report suggests that the I-FABP may be a useful diagnostic tool to confirm acute intestinal ischemia in acute abdomen, but better-designed trials are still required to confirm our findings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available