Simms I, Warburton F, Weström L
HPA Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, London, UK.
Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Dec;79(6):491-4. doi: 10.1136/sti.79.6.491.
To critically evaluate the available evidence base concerned with the diagnosis of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) based on clinical presentation, and to investigate the relation between signs and symptoms and the presence of laparoscopically diagnosed PID using the largest available dataset.
The evidence base was critically evaluated and data collected by Lund University between 1960 and 1969 were used to compare clinical presentation with the results of laparoscopic investigation. Three techniques were used in this investigation-sensitivity and specificity, likelihood ratios, and discriminant analysis.
None of the variables (abnormal vaginal discharge, fever >38 degrees C, vomiting, menstrual irregularity, ongoing bleeding, symptoms of urethritis, rectal temperature >38 degrees C, marked tenderness of pelvic organs on bimanual examination, adnexal mass, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate >or=15 mm in the first hour) had both high specificity and sensitivity-most had low specificity and sensitivity. There was little variation in either the likelihood ratios or the post-test probabilities between the variables. The lowest likelihood ratio (0.97) produced a post-test probability of 78% (95% CI: 74% to 81%) whereas the highest (1.73) had a post-test probability of 84% (95% CI: 81% to 87%). The pretest probability of having PID based on the presence of lower abdominal pain was 79% (95% CI: 76% to 82%). The discriminant analysis indicated that three variables significantly influenced the prediction of the presence of PID: erythrocyte sedimentation rate (p<0.0001), fever (p<0.0001), and adnexal tenderness (p<0.0001). These variables correctly classified 65% of patients with laparoscopically diagnosed PID (95% CI: 61% to 69%).
There is insufficient evidence to support existing diagnostic criteria, which have been based on a combination of empirical data and expert opinion. A new evidence base is urgently needed but this will require either a new investigation of the association between clinical presentation and PID based on a laparoscopic "gold standard" or the development of new diagnostic techniques.
基于临床表现对盆腔炎性疾病(PID)诊断的现有证据基础进行严格评估,并利用最大可用数据集调查体征和症状与腹腔镜诊断PID存在之间的关系。
对证据基础进行严格评估,并使用隆德大学在1960年至1969年间收集的数据将临床表现与腹腔镜检查结果进行比较。本研究采用了三种技术——敏感性和特异性、似然比以及判别分析。
没有一个变量(异常阴道分泌物、发热>38摄氏度、呕吐、月经不规律、持续出血、尿道炎症状、直肠温度>38摄氏度、双合诊时盆腔器官明显压痛、附件包块以及第1小时红细胞沉降率≥15毫米)同时具有高特异性和高敏感性——大多数变量的特异性和敏感性都较低。各变量之间的似然比或检验后概率几乎没有差异。最低似然比(0.97)产生的检验后概率为78%(95%置信区间:74%至81%),而最高似然比(1.73)的检验后概率为84%(95%置信区间:81%至87%)。基于下腹部疼痛存在诊断PID的检验前概率为79%(95%置信区间:76%至82%)。判别分析表明,三个变量对PID存在的预测有显著影响:红细胞沉降率(p<0.0001)、发热(p<0.0001)和附件压痛(p<0.0001)。这些变量正确分类了65%的腹腔镜诊断PID患者(95%置信区间:61%至69%)。
现有诊断标准基于经验数据和专家意见的结合,没有足够证据支持这些标准。迫切需要一个新的证据基础,但这需要基于腹腔镜“金标准”对临床表现与PID之间的关联进行新的研究,或者开发新的诊断技术。