Fecal screening tests in the approach to acute infectious diarrhea: a scientific overview Huicho L, Campos M, Rivera J, Guerrant R L Authors' objectives To evaluate the value of faecal leukocyte, faecal occult blood, faecal lactoferrin, and a combination of faecal leukocytes with clinical data in the workup of patients with inflammatory diarrhoea. Searching MEDLINE was searched from 1970 to September 1994 (the search terms were given). Additional relevant articles were identified by consulting experts in the field, and by examining review articles and references in retrieved articles. Study selection Study designs of evaluations included in the review All study designs reporting original data were eligible for inclusion. Technical articles which contained no clinical information were excluded. Studies where diagnostic tests were performed without medical supervision were also excluded. Specific interventions included in the review Articles including information on clinical data and/or faecal screening tests (faecal leukocytes, faecal occult blood, faecal lactoferrin), assessed individually or in combination, were eligible for inclusion. Reference standard test against which the new test was compared The included studies were required to use stool culture in all patients as the reference standard. Diarrhoea was considered inflammatory if the stool culture was positive for Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter, enteroinvasive E. coli, enteropathogenic E. coli, or cytotoxigenic C. difficile. Participants included in the review Only articles relating to acute infectious diarrhoea in humans were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes assessed in the review The included articles were required to report sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values, or to provide sufficient data for the construction of a 2x2 contingency table. How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made? All studies were reviewed independently by two reviewers who were not co-authors of the studies, using defined inclusion criteria. A final decision was reached by consensus. Assessment of study quality The overall scientific quality of each study was rated on a 16-point scale (described in detail in the report), in which 16 represented a study with minimal flaws and 1 a study with extensive flaws. All studies were reviewed independently by two reviewers who were not co-authors of the studies, using defined validity criteria. A final validity score was reached by consensus. Data extraction The data were extracted independently by the two reviewers and any differences were resolved by consensus. Methods of synthesis How were the studies combined? Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) Produced by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Copyright © 2017 University of York Page: 1 / 3