Banal F, Dougados M, Combescure C, Gossec L
Paris Descartes University, Medicine Faculty, Paris, France.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2009 Jul;68(7):1184-91. doi: 10.1136/ard.2008.093187. Epub 2008 Aug 26.
To evaluate the ability of the widely used ACR set of criteria (both list and tree format) to diagnose RA compared with expert opinion according to disease duration.
A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed and Embase databases. All articles reporting the prevalence of RA according to ACR criteria and expert opinion in cohorts of early (<1 year duration) or established (>1 year) arthritis were analysed to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of ACR 1987 criteria against the "gold standard" (expert opinion). A meta-analysis using a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was performed and pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated with confidence intervals.
Of 138 publications initially identified, 19 were analysable (total 7438 patients, 3883 RA). In early arthritis, pooled sensitivity and specificity of the ACR set of criteria were 77% (68% to 84%) and 77% (68% to 84%) in the list format versus 80% (72% to 88%) and 33% (24% to 43%) in the tree format. In established arthritis, sensitivity and specificity were respectively 79% (71% to 85%) and 90% (84% to 94%) versus 80% (71% to 85%) and 93% (86% to 97%). The SROC meta-analysis confirmed the statistically significant differences, suggesting that diagnostic performances of ACR list criteria are better in established arthritis.
The specificity of ACR 1987 criteria in early RA is low, and these criteria should not be used as diagnostic tools. Sensitivity and specificity in established RA are higher, which reflects their use as classification criteria gold standard.
根据疾病持续时间,评估广泛使用的美国风湿病学会(ACR)标准集(列表和树形格式)与专家意见相比诊断类风湿关节炎(RA)的能力。
在PubMed和Embase数据库中进行系统的文献综述。分析所有报告根据ACR标准和专家意见得出的早期(病程<1年)或确诊(病程>1年)关节炎队列中RA患病率的文章,以计算ACR 1987标准相对于“金标准”(专家意见)的敏感性和特异性。使用汇总接受者操作特征(SROC)曲线进行荟萃分析,并计算合并敏感性和特异性及其置信区间。
在最初识别的138篇出版物中,19篇可进行分析(共7438例患者,3883例RA)。在早期关节炎中,ACR标准集的合并敏感性和特异性在列表格式下分别为77%(68%至84%)和77%(68%至84%),而在树形格式下分别为80%(72%至88%)和33%(24%至43%)。在确诊关节炎中,敏感性和特异性分别为79%(71%至85%)和90%(84%至94%),而树形格式下分别为80%(71%至85%)和93%(86%至97%)。SROC荟萃分析证实了统计学上的显著差异,表明ACR列表标准在确诊关节炎中的诊断性能更好。
ACR 1987标准在早期RA中的特异性较低,不应将这些标准用作诊断工具。在确诊RA中敏感性和特异性较高,这反映了它们作为分类标准金标准的用途。