Table 5. Literature comparing the use of FC and iFOBT for the prediction Mayo endoscopic mucosal healing among patients with UC.

Author, Region	Case Number, Study Type, Center	Description of Results	Year
Yen, Taiwan	50, R, S	No difference in AUC of FC (cutoff level, 156 µg/g) vs. iFOBT (cutoff level, 30 ng/mL) for MES = 0 vs. MES ≥ 1 (0.769 vs. 0.813, P = 0.5581) No difference in AUC of FC (cutoff level, 156 µg/g) vs. iFOBT (cutoff level, 43 ng/mL) for MES ≤1 vs. MES ≥2 (0.812 vs. 0.906, P = 0.1207)	Present Study
Naganuma, Japan	429, P,M	No difference in AUC of FC (cutoff level, 146.0 mg/kg) vs. iFOBT (cutoff level, 77.0 ng/mL) for MES = 0 vs. MES ≥ 1 (0.7774 vs. 0.8085, P = 0.394) No difference in AUC of FC (cutoff level, 277.0 mg/kg) vs. iFOBT (cutoff level, 201.0 ng/mL) for MES ≤ 1 vs. MES ≥2 (0.8166 vs. 0.8353, P = 0.394)	2020[17]
Kim, Korea	127, P, M	AUC of FC (cutoff level, 70 µg/g) >iFOBT (cutoff level, 0 ng/mL) for MES = 0 vs. MES ≥ 1 (0.858 vs. 0.707, P = 0.0009) No difference in AUC of FC (cutoff level, 200 µg/g) vs. iFOBT (cutoff level, 60 ng/mL) for MES ≤1 vs. MES ≥2 (0.82 vs. 0.813, P = 0.089)	2020[16]
Ryu, Korea	128, P, S	AUC of FC (cutoff level, 170 µg/g) >iFOBT (cut-off value,100 ng/mL )for MES = 0 vs. MES ≥ 1 (0.847 vs. 0.757, P < 0.0001) AUC of FC (cutoff level, 170 µg/g)>IFOBT (cut-off value,100 ng/mL) for MES ≤1 vs. MES ≥ 2 (0.863 vs. 0.765, P < 0.0001)	2019[18]
Kim, Korea	68,R,S	No difference in AUC of FC vs. iFOBT for MES ≤ 1 vs. MES ≥2 (0.727 vs. 0.717, P = 0.8643)	2018[20]
Takashima, Japan	92,P,S	No difference in AUC of FC (cut-off value, 200 µg/g) vs. iFOBT (cut-off value, 75 ng/ml) for MES = 0 vs. MES ≥ 1 (0.83 vs. 0.82, P = 0.394) No difference in AUC of FC (cut-off value, 369 μ g/g) vs. iFOBT (cut-off value, 280 ng/ml) for MES ≤1 vs. MES ≥2 (0.80 vs. 0.79, P = 0.394)	2015[19]

Notes.

P

prospective

S

single-center study

M

multicenter study