The diagnostic performance of serum αvß6 autoantibodies for ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Currently, there is no single golden standard for diagnosing ulcerative colitis (UC). Now serum αvß6 autoantibodies have shown promise as a diagnostic tool for UC. Here the aim was to determine the diagnostic performance of serum αvß6 autoantibodies for UC. METHODS: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the Embase, and the Web of Science were searched comprehensively. STATA software was utilized to analyze the relevant data. RESULTS: 9 studies from 6 articles with 1827 subjects were eligible. The summary sensitivity and specificity of serum αvß6 autoantibodies to diagnose UC were 0.82 (95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.65-0.92) and 0.94 (95 % CI: 0.90-0.97) with an area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.96 (95 % CI: 0.94-0.97). Subgroup analysis was conducted owning to substantial heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 97 % and P < 0.001). The aggregate sensitivity and specificity to diagnose UC in adults were 0.75 (95 % CI: 0.61-0.86) and 0.95 (95 % CI: 0.90-0.97), and when using a threshold of mean control+3SD, 0.80 (95 % CI: 0.60-0.91) and 0.96 (95 % CI: 0.90-0.99), respectively. Additionally, to differentiate UC from healthy participants, non-inflammatory bowel disease, and Crohn's disease, the overall specificity was 0.96, 0.88, and 0.80, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: serum αvß6 autoantibodies, as a non-invasive tool, demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy for UC. However, their application may be limited in some immune-related disorders, and further studies are needed for validation.

Depression and risk of hip fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Recently published studies on the association between depression and hip fracture (HF) are inconsistent. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis with the main aim to clarify the association between depression and HF, and also to identify possible susceptible groups. Relevant literature published until February 2019 was obtained and screened according to established inclusion criteria. Two researchers independently processed quality assessment and data extraction prior to the meta-analysis. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95%CI (confidence intervals) were calculated. To explore the sources of heterogeneity, subgroup analyses were performed based on study design, study region, NOS scores, follow-up duration, diagnostic criteria, sex, national income level, and adjustments (bone mineral density (BMD), antidepressant, calcium intake, and smoking). Ten studies with 13 estimates, involving 375,438 participants and 4576 HFs, were included. It was found that patients with depression had a higher risk of HF than non-depressed patients (HR = 1.21; 95%CI 1.11-1.31). Sensitivity analysis results show that the association is relatively stable. The studies that were not adjusted for confounders (e.g., antidepressant, BMD, calcium intake, and smoking) had higher overall HR compared to the studies that adjusted for the corresponding confounding factors. HFs are more likely to occur in European and male depression patients. This meta-analysis provided evidence of a modest positive association between depression and the risk of HFs, and the association is stronger in European and male patients. Implementation of practical measures to prevent and treat depression is of great public health significance.