SynthesisPeerJ2025
Establishing reference values for age-related fecal calprotectin in healthy children aged 0-4 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Faecal calprotectin reference ranges in early childhood: a cross-sectional study of healthy infants in Hungary.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Article
- Calprotectin as a Biomarker for Infectious Diseases: A Comparative Review with Conventional Inflammatory Markers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The use of fecal calprotectin (FC) as a biomarker in children under 4 years of age is limited, as widely accepted reference values have not yet been established. Thus, the present meta-analysis was performed to establish convincing age-related FC reference values. Method: We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis to establish age-specific reference intervals for FC in children aged 0-4 years by synthesizing data from multiple studies. An exhaustive search of three major databases was conducted from their inception through April 2024, and this was complemented by manual screening of reference lists to ensure the inclusion of all relevant studies. The eligibility criteria were restricted to English-language publications reporting quantitative FC levels in apparently healthy children under 4 years of age. A stringent study selection protocol was applied, with each article independently reviewed by at least two investigators to ensure accuracy in study inclusion, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment. For the statistical analysis, random-effects meta-analysis models were constructed using restricted maximum likelihood estimation to generate pooled mean FC levels and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at the study level. Results: A total of 23 studies ( Conclusion: We established normal reference ranges for FC in healthy children aged 0-4 years. Assay methodology and geographic factors significantly influence baseline FC levels, underscoring the need for careful interpretation of FC levels in clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.