Program in Emerging Infectious Diseases, Duke-National University of Singapore (NUS) Graduate Medical School, Singapore.
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011 Feb;84(2):224-8. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2011.10-0316.
Because healthcare facilities in many dengue endemic countries lack laboratory support, early dengue diagnosis must rely on either clinical recognition or a bedside diagnostic test. We evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of the 1997 and 2009 World Health Organization (WHO) dengue classification schemes and the NS1 strip test in acute sera from 154 virologically confirmed dengue patients and 200 patients with other febrile illnesses. Both WHO classification schemes had high sensitivity but lacked specificity. The NS1 strip test had high specificity, but its sensitivity was significantly lower in secondary compared with primary dengue infections. Differences in viral serotypes did not affect the performance of any of the three diagnostic approaches. Taken collectively, our findings indicate that the 1997 WHO dengue case definition can be used to exclude dengue, and the NS1 strip test can be used to confirm dengue infection, although the latter should be interpreted with caution in regions where secondary dengue infection is prevalent.
由于许多登革热流行国家的医疗设施缺乏实验室支持,早期登革热诊断必须依赖临床识别或床边诊断测试。我们评估了 1997 年和 2009 年世界卫生组织(WHO)登革热分类方案以及 NS1 条带试验在 154 例病毒学确诊登革热患者和 200 例其他发热性疾病患者急性血清中的敏感性和特异性。两种 WHO 分类方案均具有较高的敏感性,但特异性不足。NS1 条带试验特异性高,但在继发感染与原发感染相比时,其敏感性显著降低。病毒血清型的差异不影响这三种诊断方法的性能。总的来说,我们的研究结果表明,1997 年世界卫生组织登革热病例定义可用于排除登革热,NS1 条带试验可用于确认登革热感染,尽管在继发感染较为普遍的地区,后者的解释应谨慎进行。