Suppr超能文献

三种诊断前交叉韧带撕裂的测试的准确性。

Accuracy of 3 diagnostic tests for anterior cruciate ligament tears.

作者信息

Ostrowski John A

机构信息

University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.

出版信息

J Athl Train. 2006 Jan-Mar;41(1):120-1.

Abstract

CLINICAL QUESTION

In patients presenting with possible rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), which diagnostic test can provide an accurate diagnosis during the physical examination?

DATA SOURCES

Two reviewers searched MEDLINE (1966 to February 14, 2003) and EMBASE (1980 to February 14, 2003). Articles written in English, French, German, or Dutch were included. The key search terms were knee injuries, knee joint, and knee. These terms were combined with the headings joint instability and anterior cruciate ligament, as well as the text words laxity, instability, cruciate, and effusion. The results of these searches were combined with the subject headings sensitivity and specificity, physical examination, and not (animal not [human and animal]). Additional text words searched were sensitivit*, specificit*, false positive, false negative, accuracy, screening, physical examination, and clinical examination. The reference lists of included articles were examined.

STUDY SELECTION

Inclusion criteria consisted of (1) investigation of at least one physical diagnostic test for assessment of ACL ruptures in the knee and (2) the use of a reference standard of arthrotomy, arthroscopy, or magnetic resonance imaging.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent reviewers extracted data from each included study. The methodologic quality of each test was assessed and recorded on a checklist for the screening of diagnostic tests (www.cochrane.de/cochrane/sadtdoc1.htm). The 3 diagnostic tests validated in this review were the pivot shift test, the anterior drawer test, and the Lachman test. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve was performed for each test, and the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were reported.

MAIN RESULTS

The search strategy produced 1090 potentially eligible studies, of which 17 studies were selected. One study was included via reference list examination and 2 reports referred to the same study. Thus, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria and were used for this review. For the included studies, the sample size ranged from 32 to 300 patients. As for the age of the subjects, the authors of 4 studies failed to report it. Thus, the average age of patients across 13 of the 17 studies was 28.6 years. Authors of all studies failed to measure the clinical test and reference standard separately and with blinding. In addition, all but two studies had a significant degree of verification bias. Arthrotomy was the lone reference standard in 4 studies whereas arthrotomy/arthroscopy was the reference standard in 5 studies. Arthroscopy alone was the reference standard in 6 studies where only 2 studies used MRI as the reference standard. Authors of 8 studies examined the anterior drawer test and reported sensitivity values ranging from 0.18-0.92 and specificity values ranging from 0.78-0.98. When pooled together using the bivariate random effects model (BREM), the sensitivity value of the 8 studies was 0.2 and the specificity value was 0.88. Authors of 9 studies examined the Lachman test and reported sensitivity values ranging from 0.63-0.93 and specificity values ranging from 0.55-0.99. Pooled together using the BREM, the sensitivity value was 0.86 and the specificity value was 0.91. Lastly, authors of 6 studies examined the pivot shift test and reported sensitivity values ranging from 0.18-0.48 and specificity values ranging from 0.97-0.99. Data for the pivot shift test could not be pooled using the BREM because of the low number of available studies. Predictive values were reported graphically, with the pivot shift test having the highest positive predictive value and the Lachman test having the best negative predictive value.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on predictive value statistics, it can be concluded that during the physical examination, a positive result for the pivot shift test is the best for ruling in an ACL rupture, whereas a negative result to the Lachman test is the best for ruling out an ACL rupture. It can also be concluded that, solely using sensitivity and specificity values, the Lachman test is a better overall test at both ruling in and ruling out ACL ruptures. The anterior drawer test appears to be inconclusive for drawing strong conclusions either way.

摘要

临床问题

对于表现出前交叉韧带(ACL)可能断裂的患者,哪种诊断测试能在体格检查中提供准确诊断?

数据来源

两名评审员检索了MEDLINE(1966年至2003年2月14日)和EMBASE(1980年至2003年2月14日)。纳入了用英语、法语、德语或荷兰语撰写的文章。关键检索词为膝关节损伤、膝关节和膝盖。这些词与关节不稳定和前交叉韧带的主题词以及松弛、不稳定、交叉和积液等文本词相结合。这些检索结果与敏感性和特异性、体格检查以及非(动物非[人类和动物])的主题词相结合。另外检索的文本词有sensitivit*、specificit*、假阳性、假阴性、准确性、筛查、体格检查和临床检查。检查了纳入文章的参考文献列表。

研究选择

纳入标准包括:(1)对至少一种用于评估膝关节ACL断裂的体格诊断测试进行研究;(2)使用关节切开术、关节镜检查或磁共振成像的参考标准。

数据提取

两名独立评审员从每项纳入研究中提取数据。根据诊断测试筛查清单(www.cochrane.de/cochrane/sadtdoc1.htm)评估并记录每项测试的方法学质量。本综述中验证的3种诊断测试为轴移试验、前抽屉试验和拉赫曼试验。对每项测试绘制了汇总的受试者工作特征曲线,并报告了敏感性、特异性和预测值。

主要结果

检索策略产生了1090项潜在符合条件的研究,其中17项研究被选中。通过参考文献列表检查纳入1项研究,2份报告提及同一研究。因此,17项研究符合纳入标准并用于本综述。对于纳入研究,样本量从32至300名患者不等。至于受试者的年龄,4项研究的作者未报告。因此,17项研究中13项研究的患者平均年龄为28.6岁。所有研究的作者均未分别且在盲态下测量临床测试和参考标准。此外,除两项研究外,所有研究都存在显著程度的验证偏倚。4项研究中关节切开术是唯一的参考标准,5项研究中关节切开术/关节镜检查是参考标准。6项研究中单独关节镜检查是参考标准,仅2项研究使用MRI作为参考标准。8项研究的作者检查了前抽屉试验,报告的敏感性值范围为0.18 - 0.92,特异性值范围为0.78 - 0.98。使用双变量随机效应模型(BREM)汇总时,8项研究的敏感性值为0.2,特异性值为0.88。9项研究的作者检查了拉赫曼试验,报告的敏感性值范围为0.63 - 0.93,特异性值范围为0.55 - 0.99。使用BREM汇总时,敏感性值为0.86,特异性值为0.9l。最后,6项研究的作者检查了轴移试验,报告的敏感性值范围为0.18 - 0.48,特异性值范围为0.97 - 0.99。由于可用研究数量较少,轴移试验的数据无法使用BREM进行汇总。预测值以图表形式报告,轴移试验具有最高的阳性预测值,拉赫曼试验具有最佳负性预测值。

结论

基于预测值统计,可以得出结论,在体格检查中,轴移试验阳性结果对确诊ACL断裂最为有利,而拉赫曼试验阴性结果对排除ACL断裂最为有利。还可以得出结论,仅使用敏感性和特异性值,拉赫曼试验在确诊和排除ACL断裂方面总体上是更好的测试。前抽屉试验无论哪种方式似乎都无法得出强有力的结论。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验