Trowbridge Robert L, Rutkowski Nicole K, Shojania Kaveh G
Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco 94143-0120 , USA.
JAMA. 2003 Jan 1;289(1):80-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.1.80.
Although few patients with acute abdominal pain will prove to have cholecystitis, ruling in or ruling out acute cholecystitis consumes substantial diagnostic resources.
To determine if aspects of the history and physical examination or basic laboratory testing clearly identify patients who require diagnostic imaging tests to rule in or rule out the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis.
Electronic search of the Science Citation Index, Cochrane Library, and English-language articles from January 1966 through November 2000 indexed in MEDLINE. We also hand-searched Index Medicus for 1950-1965, and scanned references in identified articles and bibliographies of prominent textbooks of physical examination, surgery, and gastroenterology. To identify relevant articles appearing since the comprehensive search, we repeated the MEDLINE search in July 2002.
Included studies evaluated the role of the history, physical examination, and/or laboratory tests in adults with abdominal pain or suspected acute cholecystitis. Studies had to report data from a control group found not to have acute cholecystitis. Acceptable definitions of cholecystitis included surgery, pathologic examination, hepatic iminodiacetic acid scan or right upper quadrant ultrasound, or clinical course consistent with acute cholecystitis and no evidence for an alternate diagnosis. Studies of acalculous cholecystitis were included. Seventeen of 195 identified studies met the inclusion criteria.
Two authors independently abstracted data from the 17 included studies. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus with a third author.
No clinical or laboratory finding had a sufficiently high positive likelihood ratio (LR) or low negative LR to rule in or rule out the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis. Possible exceptions were the Murphy sign (positive LR, 2.8; 95% CI, 0.8-8.6) and right upper quadrant tenderness (negative LR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-1.1), though the 95% CIs for both included 1.0. Available data on diagnostic confirmation rates at laparotomy and test characteristics of relevant radiological investigations suggest that the diagnostic impression of acute cholecystitis has a positive LR of 25 to 30. Unfortunately, the available literature does not identify the specific combinations of clinical and laboratory findings that presumably account for this diagnostic success.
No single clinical finding or laboratory test carries sufficient weight to establish or exclude cholecystitis without further testing (eg, right upper quadrant ultrasound). Combinations of certain symptoms, signs, and laboratory results likely have more useful LRs, and presumably inform the diagnostic impressions of experienced clinicians. Pending further research characterizing the pretest probabilities associated with different clinical presentations, the evaluation of patients with abdominal pain suggestive of cholecystitis will continue to rely heavily on the clinical gestalt and diagnostic imaging.
尽管很少有急性腹痛患者最终被证实患有胆囊炎,但确定或排除急性胆囊炎会消耗大量诊断资源。
确定病史、体格检查或基础实验室检查的某些方面是否能明确识别出需要进行诊断性影像学检查以确定或排除急性胆囊炎诊断的患者。
对科学引文索引、考克兰图书馆以及1966年1月至2000年11月收录在医学索引数据库中的英文文章进行电子检索。我们还手工检索了1950 - 1965年的医学索引,并浏览了已识别文章中的参考文献以及体格检查、外科和胃肠病学著名教科书的参考文献目录。为了识别全面检索后出现的相关文章,我们于2002年7月重复了医学索引数据库的检索。
纳入的研究评估了病史、体格检查和/或实验室检查在腹痛成人患者或疑似急性胆囊炎患者中的作用。研究必须报告来自被发现没有急性胆囊炎的对照组的数据。胆囊炎的可接受定义包括手术、病理检查、肝亚氨基二乙酸扫描或右上腹超声检查,或临床病程符合急性胆囊炎且无其他诊断依据。无结石性胆囊炎的研究也被纳入。在195项已识别的研究中,有17项符合纳入标准。
两位作者独立从17项纳入研究中提取数据。分歧通过与第三位作者讨论并达成共识来解决。
没有任何临床或实验室检查结果具有足够高的阳性似然比(LR)或低的阴性似然比来确定或排除急性胆囊炎的诊断。可能的例外是墨菲氏征(阳性LR,2.8;95%置信区间,0.8 - 8.6)和右上腹压痛(阴性LR,0.4;95%置信区间,0.2 - 1.1),尽管两者的95%置信区间都包含1.0。关于剖腹手术时诊断确诊率和相关放射学检查的检验特征的现有数据表明,急性胆囊炎的诊断印象的阳性LR为25至30。不幸的是,现有文献未确定可能导致这种诊断成功的临床和实验室检查结果的具体组合。
没有单一的临床发现或实验室检查结果具有足够的权重来确定或排除胆囊炎,而无需进一步检查(如右上腹超声检查)。某些症状、体征和实验室结果的组合可能具有更有用的似然比,并且大概能为经验丰富的临床医生的诊断印象提供信息。在进一步研究确定与不同临床表现相关的检验前概率之前,对提示胆囊炎的腹痛患者的评估将继续严重依赖临床整体判断和诊断性影像学检查。