Suppr超能文献

对无症状受试者腰椎激发性椎间盘造影的系统评价及假阳性率的荟萃分析。

Systematic review of lumbar provocation discography in asymptomatic subjects with a meta-analysis of false-positive rates.

作者信息

Wolfer Lee R, Derby Richard, Lee Jeong-Eun, Lee Sang-Heon

机构信息

Spinal Diagnostics and Treatment Center, Daly City, CA 94015, USA.

出版信息

Pain Physician. 2008 Jul-Aug;11(4):513-38.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Lumbar provocation discography is a controversial diagnostic test. Currently, there is a concern that the test has an unacceptably high false-positive rate.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of lumbar discography studies in asymptomatic subjects and discs with a meta-analysis of the specificity and false-positive rate of lumbar discography.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted via a PUBMED search. Studies were included/excluded according to modern discography practices. Study quality was scored using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) instrument for diagnostic accuracy. Specific data was extracted from studies and tabulated per published criteria and standards to determine the false-positive rates. A meta-analysis of specificity was performed. Strength of evidence was rated according to the AHRQ U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were identified. Combining all extractable data, a false-positive rate of 9.3% per patient and 6.0% per disc is obtained. Data pooled from asymptomatic subjects without low back pain or confounding factors, shows a false-positive rate of 3.0% per patient and 2.1% per disc. In data pooled from chronic pain patients, asymptomatic of low back pain, the false-positive rate is 5.6% per patient and 3.85% per disc. Chronic pain does not appear to be a confounding factor in a chronic low back pain patient's ability to distinguish between positive (pathologic) and negative (non-pathologic) discs. Among additional asymptomatic patient subgroups analyzed, the false-positive rate per patient and per disc is as follows: iliac crest pain 12.5% and 7.1%; chronic neck pain 0%; somatization disorder 50% and 22.2%, and, post-discectomy 15% and 9.1%, respectively. In patients with chronic backache, no false-positive rate can be calculated. Low-pressure positive criteria (< or = 15 psi a.o.) can obtain a low false-positive rate. Based on meta-analysis of the data, using the ISIS standard, discography has a specificity of 0.94 (95% CI 0.88 - 0.98) and a false-positive rate of 0.06.

CONCLUSIONS

Strength of evidence is level II-2 based on the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality (USPSTF) for the diagnostic accuracy of discography. Contrary to recently published studies, discography has a low false-positive rate for the diagnosis of discogenic pain.

摘要

背景

腰椎激发性椎间盘造影是一项存在争议的诊断测试。目前,人们担心该测试的假阳性率高得令人无法接受。

研究设计

系统评价和荟萃分析。

目的

对无症状受试者和椎间盘的腰椎间盘造影研究进行系统评价,并对腰椎间盘造影的特异性和假阳性率进行荟萃分析。

方法

通过PubMed搜索对文献进行系统评价。根据现代椎间盘造影实践纳入/排除研究。使用医疗保健研究与质量机构(AHRQ)的诊断准确性工具对研究质量进行评分。从研究中提取特定数据,并根据已发表的标准和规范制成表格,以确定假阳性率。对特异性进行荟萃分析。根据AHRQ美国预防服务工作组(USPSTF)标准对证据强度进行评级。

结果

共识别出11项研究。综合所有可提取的数据,每位患者的假阳性率为9.3%,每个椎间盘的假阳性率为6.0%。从无下背痛或混杂因素的无症状受试者汇总的数据显示,每位患者的假阳性率为3.0%,每个椎间盘的假阳性率为2.1%。从无下背痛的慢性疼痛患者汇总的数据中,每位患者的假阳性率为5.6%,每个椎间盘的假阳性率为3.85%。慢性疼痛似乎不是慢性下背痛患者区分阳性(病理性)和阴性(非病理性)椎间盘能力的混杂因素。在分析的其他无症状患者亚组中,每位患者和每个椎间盘的假阳性率如下:髂嵴疼痛分别为12.5%和7.1%;慢性颈痛为0%;躯体化障碍分别为50%和22.2%;椎间盘切除术后分别为15%和9.1%。对于慢性背痛患者,无法计算假阳性率。低压阳性标准(例如≤15 psi)可获得较低的假阳性率。基于对数据的荟萃分析,使用ISIS标准,椎间盘造影的特异性为0.94(95%CI 0.88 - 0.98),假阳性率为0.06。

结论

根据医疗保健研究质量机构(USPSTF)的标准,椎间盘造影诊断准确性的证据强度为II-2级。与最近发表的研究相反,椎间盘造影在诊断椎间盘源性疼痛时假阳性率较低。

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