Evidence Hub

Inflammatory biomarkers and psychological variables to assess quality of life in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a cross-sectional study

Rafael González-Moret, Ausiàs Cebolla-Martí, Isabel Almodóvar-Fernández, J. Navarrete, Ángeles García-Esparza, J. M. Soria, J. Lisón

Annals medicus, 2024

74 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic gastrointestinal condition. While inflammatory biomarkers are valuable for diagnosing and monitoring the disease, their correlation with patients’ quality of life (QoL) is not well-established. Purpose This study aims to investigate the correlations between inflammatory biomarkers and the quality of life (QoL) variables of individuals diagnosed with IBD in clinical remission. Methods The sample of this cross-sectional study included 74 patients (80% women; 45 ± 11 years old) diagnosed with IBD. Outcome variables included faecal calprotectin (FC), C-reactive protein (CRP), cortisol levels from hair samples, and anxiety and depression assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A and HADS-D, respectively), alongside QoL evaluated with the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire 32 (IBDQ-32). Bivariate correlations were calculated using the Pearson correlation coefficient, and stepwise linear regression analyses were conducted to identify independent factors contributing to IBDQ-32 scores. Results The IBDQ-32 did not significantly correlate with any biomarkers. However, it exhibited a large and statistically significant negative correlation with HADS-A (r = −0.651) and HADS-D (r = −0.611) scores (p < 0.001). Stepwise linear regression analyses indicated that HADS-A was a significant and independent predictor for IBDQ-32 scores (Adjusted R2 = 0.41, β = −0.65, p < 0.001). Conclusions…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 74 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free