Valentini Anna Lia, De Gaetano Anna Maria, Destito Carmelo, Marino Vincenza, Minordi Laura M, Marano Pasquale
Department of Radiology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Policlinico A. Gemelli, Largo A. Gemelli, 8-00168 Rome, Italy.
Eur J Pediatr. 2002 Jul;161(7):380-4. doi: 10.1007/s00431-002-0954-4. Epub 2002 May 9.
The primary objective of this review was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of voiding urosonography (VUS) in detecting reflux (VUR). As a secondary objective, the reported technical suggestions and diagnostic mistakes were shown to improve the examination protocol and provide the most accurate results. Using a Medline Database search, the published articles comparing the grey-scale (GS) or colour-Doppler (CD) VUS with voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) as the gold standard were selected. Articles were excluded when data were not sufficient to construct 2x2 tables or when the gold standard was different from VCUG. For the analyses of diagnostic accuracy values, 95% confidence intervals were given. Agreements in the results of GSVUS and VCUG and in those of CDVUS and VCUG were determined by Kappa statistics. GSVUS and CDVUS were compared for diagnostic accuracy by the McNemar test. Results showed that the range of GSVUS sensitivity and specificity in detecting VUR was 69%-100% and 86%-97%, respectively. The agreement between GSVUS and VCUG diagnoses ranged from 90% to 97% (K score range 0.61-0.92; P<0.001). The range of CDVUS sensitivity and specificity in detecting VUR was 93%-100% and 86%-93%, respectively. The agreement between CDVUS and VCUG diagnoses ranged from 89% to 96% (K score range 0.77-0.91; P<0.001). One study comparing both VUS modalities with VCUG in the same group of patients, showed that the diagnostic accuracy of CDVUS was significantly higher than that of GSVUS (96% versus 90% of cases correctly classified; McNemar chi squared =4; P<0.05).
the existing data indicate that false-negative voiding urosonographic diagnoses (8%-31%) and underestimated reflux grading cases using the same technique are related to anatomical conditions, patient cooperation and contrast medium administration. False-positive (3%-14%) and overestimated reflux grading cases using voiding urosonography could be correctly assessed cases. The intermittent nature of vesico-ureteral reflux is better detected by a technique employing a prolonged observation time, such as voiding urosonography. This might question the current role of voiding cystourethrography in the investigation of reflux.
本综述的主要目的是评估排尿期超声检查(VUS)检测反流(VUR)的诊断准确性。作为次要目的,展示已报道的技术建议和诊断错误,以改进检查方案并提供最准确的结果。通过检索Medline数据库,选择了将灰阶(GS)或彩色多普勒(CD)VUS与排尿性膀胱尿道造影(VCUG)作为金标准进行比较的已发表文章。当数据不足以构建2×2表格或金标准不同于VCUG时,文章被排除。对于诊断准确性值的分析,给出了95%置信区间。GSVUS与VCUG结果以及CDVUS与VCUG结果之间的一致性通过Kappa统计量确定。通过McNemar检验比较GSVUS和CDVUS的诊断准确性。结果显示,GSVUS检测VUR的敏感性范围为69% - 100%,特异性范围为86% - 97%。GSVUS与VCUG诊断之间的一致性范围为90%至97%(K值范围0.61 - 0.92;P < 0.001)。CDVUS检测VUR的敏感性范围为93% - 100%,特异性范围为86% - 93%。CDVUS与VCUG诊断之间的一致性范围为89%至96%(K值范围0.77 - 0.91;P < 0.001)。一项在同一组患者中比较两种VUS模式与VCUG的研究表明,CDVUS的诊断准确性显著高于GSVUS(正确分类的病例分别为96%和90%;McNemar卡方 = 4;P < 0.05)。
现有数据表明,排尿期超声检查的假阴性诊断(8% - 31%)以及使用相同技术低估反流分级的病例与解剖条件、患者配合和造影剂注入有关。使用排尿期超声检查的假阳性(3% - 14%)和高估反流分级的病例可能是正确评估的病例。采用延长观察时间的技术(如排尿期超声检查)能更好地检测膀胱输尿管反流的间歇性。这可能会质疑排尿性膀胱尿道造影目前在反流检查中的作用。