Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Oral and Craniofacial Health Science, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Gastroenterology. 2019 Sep;157(3):859-880. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.06.014. Epub 2019 Jul 26.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The evaluation of patients with chronic watery diarrhea represents a diagnostic challenge for clinicians because organic causes, including inflammatory bowel disease, microscopic colitis, and chronic infection, must be differentiated from functional diarrhea and diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. The purpose of this review is to summarize the available evidence on the usefulness of diagnostic tests in such patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE via OVID, from 1978 until April 2017. We included diagnostic test accuracy studies reporting on the use of fecal and blood tests for the evaluation of adult patients with functional diarrhea, including irritable bowel syndrome. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using a modified version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies II, and the certainty in the evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. We calculated pooled sensitivity and specificity, and the proportion of patients with true and false positive and negative results. We evaluated the following tests: erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, fecal lactoferrin, fecal calprotectin, serologic tests for celiac disease, tests for bile acid diarrhea, the commercially available version of anti-cytolethal distending toxin B and anti-vinculin antibodies, and tests for Giardia infection. We did not evaluate breath tests for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, as they are not part of a standard diarrhea workup. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies proved eligible to evaluate 1 or more of these tests. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein were similar at discriminating organic from functional disease, with sensitivity and specificity, respectively, of 0.54-0.78 and 0.46-0.95 for erythrocyte sedimentation rate and 0.73 and 0.78 for C-reactive protein. Among fecal tests, fecal calprotectin in a range of 50-60 μg/g (pooled sensitivity 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.86; pooled specificity 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.92) and fecal lactoferrin in a range of 4.0-7.25 μg/g (pooled sensitivity 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.84; pooled specificity 0.93; 95%CI 0.63-0.99) presented the lowest proportion of false-negative results (low certainty in the evidence). Among tests for celiac disease, IgA tissue transglutaminase presented the best diagnostic test accuracy (sensitivity range, 0.79-0.99; specificity range, 0.90-0.99) with moderate certainty in the evidence. Among tests for bile acid diarrhea, the selenium homotaurocholic acid test performed better than serum fibroblast growth factor 19 and 7α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one, but is not available in the United States. There was insufficient evidence to recommend serologic tests for irritable bowel syndrome at this time. There are several good diagnostic tests for Giardia infection. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate to low certainty in the evidence indicates that available fecal and blood tests may play a role in the diagnostic workup of adult patients with functional diarrhea. At the moment, no tests are available to reliably rule in irritable bowel syndrome.
背景与目的:对于临床医生来说,评估慢性水样腹泻患者具有诊断挑战性,因为必须将器质性病因(包括炎症性肠病、显微镜结肠炎和慢性感染)与功能性腹泻和以腹泻为主的肠易激综合征相区分。本文的目的是总结现有关于此类患者诊断性检查有用性的证据。
方法:我们通过 OVID 检索 MEDLINE 和 EMBASE,检索时间截至 2017 年 4 月。我们纳入了报告评估成人功能性腹泻(包括肠易激综合征)患者粪便和血液检查的诊断性检查准确性研究。我们使用改良的诊断准确性研究质量评估工具 II 评估纳入研究的偏倚风险,并使用 GRADE(推荐分级的评估、制定与评价)方法评估证据的确定性。我们计算了汇总的敏感性和特异性,以及真阳性和假阳性及假阴性患者的比例。我们评估了以下检查:红细胞沉降率、C 反应蛋白、粪便乳铁蛋白、粪便钙卫蛋白、针对乳糜泻的血清学检查、胆酸腹泻检查、商用的抗细胞毒素扩张毒素 B 和抗连蛋白抗体检测,以及贾第虫感染检查。我们没有评估小肠细菌过度生长的呼气试验,因为它们不是标准腹泻检查的一部分。
结果:38 项研究被证明有资格评估其中 1 项或多项检查。红细胞沉降率和 C 反应蛋白在区分器质性疾病和功能性疾病方面相似,红细胞沉降率的敏感性和特异性分别为 0.54-0.78 和 0.46-0.95,C 反应蛋白的敏感性和特异性分别为 0.73 和 0.78。在粪便检查中,粪便钙卫蛋白在 50-60μg/g 范围内(汇总敏感性 0.81;95%置信区间 [CI],0.75-0.86;汇总特异性 0.87;95%CI,0.78-0.92)和粪便乳铁蛋白在 4.0-7.25μg/g 范围内(汇总敏感性 0.79;95%CI,0.73-0.84;汇总特异性 0.93;95%CI,0.63-0.99)的假阴性结果比例最低(证据确定性低)。在乳糜泻检查中,IgA 组织转谷氨酰胺酶的诊断性检查准确性最佳(敏感性范围为 0.79-0.99;特异性范围为 0.90-0.99),但证据确定性为中等。在胆酸腹泻检查中,7α-羟基-4-胆甾烯-3-酮比血清成纤维细胞生长因子 19 和硒同型牛磺胆酸检测效果更好,但在美国不可用。目前没有足够的证据推荐使用血清学检查来诊断肠易激综合征。有几种针对贾第虫感染的良好诊断性检查。
结论:证据的确定性为中等至低等,这表明现有的粪便和血液检查可能在成人功能性腹泻的诊断性检查中发挥作用。目前,没有任何检查可以可靠地诊断肠易激综合征。
Gastroenterology. 2019-9
Am J Gastroenterol. 2021-1-1
J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2025-4-30
J Inflamm Res. 2024-9-30
Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi. 2024-5-15
Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2023-10-18