Scholarlink

Background <p>This review synthesized available literature to determine the pooled diagnostic accuracy of fecal lactoferrin (FLTF) in discriminating acute gastroenteritis (AGE) from healthy controls.</p> Methods <p>A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science for related publications written in English. Further, a meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled estimates of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity), diagnostic odds ratios, and area under the curve (AUC) using different analysis models.</p> Results <p>Following the removal of duplicates, exclusion of irrelevant studies, and eligibility screening, nine studies were included in the review. As for the pooled meta-analysis estimates, the sensitivity and specificity of FLTF ranged from 0.13–0.73 and 0.54–0.74, respectively, out of the 11 analysis models. On the other hand, only one out of the 11 models showed fair results in the AUC. Further, FLTF showed fair results when differentiating individuals with AGE caused by invasive organisms and controls or negative culture results.</p> Conclusion <p>Overall, this review and meta-analysis suggest that FLTF may be a useful screening tool for discriminating AGE caused by invasive bacterial origin vs. negative tests. However, further studies are still needed to validate these claims.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Diagnostic efficiency of fecal lactoferrin in detecting bacterial gastroenteritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月29日

查看全文
  • Raphael Enrique Tiongco,
  • Eliezer John Castro,
  • Michael John Dominguez,
  • John Ashley Flores,
  • Jian Bianca Pugeda,
  • Mona Lisa Lacson,
  • Reynaldo Bundalian Jr.

摘要

Background

This review synthesized available literature to determine the pooled diagnostic accuracy of fecal lactoferrin (FLTF) in discriminating acute gastroenteritis (AGE) from healthy controls.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science for related publications written in English. Further, a meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled estimates of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity), diagnostic odds ratios, and area under the curve (AUC) using different analysis models.

Results

Following the removal of duplicates, exclusion of irrelevant studies, and eligibility screening, nine studies were included in the review. As for the pooled meta-analysis estimates, the sensitivity and specificity of FLTF ranged from 0.13–0.73 and 0.54–0.74, respectively, out of the 11 analysis models. On the other hand, only one out of the 11 models showed fair results in the AUC. Further, FLTF showed fair results when differentiating individuals with AGE caused by invasive organisms and controls or negative culture results.

Conclusion

Overall, this review and meta-analysis suggest that FLTF may be a useful screening tool for discriminating AGE caused by invasive bacterial origin vs. negative tests. However, further studies are still needed to validate these claims.