Suppr超能文献

欧洲临床微生物学和传染病学会(ESCMID):艰难梭菌感染(CDI)诊断的数据回顾和建议。

European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID): data review and recommendations for diagnosing Clostridium difficile-infection (CDI).

机构信息

Department of Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Clin Microbiol Infect. 2009 Dec;15(12):1053-66. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2009.03098.x.

Abstract

The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate the available evidence on laboratory diagnosis of CDI and to formulate recommendations to optimize CDI testing. In comparison with cell culture cytotoxicity assay (CCA) and toxigenic culture (TC) of stools, we analyzed the test characteristics of 13 commercial available enzyme immunoasssays (EIA) detecting toxins A and/or B, 4 EIAs detecting Clostridium difficile glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH), and a real-time PCR for C. difficile toxin B gene. In comparison with CCA and TCA and assuming a prevalence of CDI of 5%, PPV and NPV varied between 0.28-0.77, 0.12-0.65 and 0.98-1.00, 0.97-1.00, respectively. Only if the tests were performed in a population with a CDI prevalence of 50 percent, would PPVs be acceptable (ranging from 0.71 to 1.00).To overcome the problem of a low PPV, we propose a two step approach, with a second test or a reference method in case of a positive first test. Further reducing the number of false negative results would require either retesting of all subjects with a negative first test, or re-testing all subjects with a negative second test, after an initially positive test. This approach resulted in non-significant improvements, and emphasizes the need for better diagnostic tests. Further studies to validate the applicability of two-step testing, including assessment of clinical features, are required.

摘要

本系统评价的目的是评估 CDI 的实验室诊断的现有证据,并制定优化 CDI 检测的建议。与细胞培养细胞毒性测定(CCA)和粪便产毒培养(TC)相比,我们分析了 13 种市售检测毒素 A 和/或 B 的酶联免疫吸附试验(EIA)、4 种检测艰难梭菌谷氨酸脱氢酶(GDH)的 EIA 和实时 PCR 检测艰难梭菌毒素 B 基因的检测特征。与 CCA 和 TCA 相比,假设 CDI 的患病率为 5%,PPV 和 NPV 的范围分别为 0.28-0.77、0.12-0.65 和 0.98-1.00、0.97-1.00。只有在 CDI 患病率为 50%的人群中进行检测,PPV 才是可以接受的(范围为 0.71 至 1.00)。为了克服低 PPV 的问题,我们提出了两步法,在第一次测试呈阳性的情况下,使用第二种测试或参考方法。进一步减少假阴性结果的数量需要对所有第一次测试呈阴性的患者进行重新测试,或者在最初阳性测试后对所有第二次测试呈阴性的患者进行重新测试。该方法并未显著改善,这强调了需要更好的诊断测试。需要进一步的研究来验证两步测试的适用性,包括对临床特征的评估。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验