Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2011 May;106(5):824-32; quiz 833. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2011.10. Epub 2011 Feb 8.
Recent consensus guidelines for diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have been published. Whether these guidelines have standardized diagnostic criteria for EoE is unknown. We aimed to determine if the EoE guidelines had an impact on the diagnostic criteria reported in the EoE literature, and whether the previously observed variability in diagnostic criteria has become more uniform.
Two investigators independently conducted a MEDLINE search from 1 January 2007 through 30 June 2010 for all publications reporting EoE in human subjects, and also searched the proceedings of the 2007-2010 American College of Gastroenterology and American Gastroenterological Association meetings, using a predefined search strategy. Data were extracted from all relevant publications.
Of the 799 publications identified, 149 original reports, 99 reviews, and 165 abstracts were included. In all, 32 original reports (21%) used diagnostic criteria consistent with each of the three components of the consensus guidelines. There was a significant increase when comparing original articles published after the release of the guidelines with those published earlier (31 vs. 6%, P<0.001). The proportion of original articles using 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf) as a histological cut-point increased significantly (P=0.001). There was still substantial variability in biopsy protocols and eosinophil count methodology. The majority of original articles did not report microscope high-power field (HPF) area.
The proportion of original reports with diagnostic criteria consistent with the consensus guidelines has increased significantly. However, the majority of articles still did not conform to all three of the criteria in the guidelines, and biopsy and eosinophil count protocols continue to demonstrate significant variability. Standardization of biopsy and eosinophil count protocols is needed.
最近发布了嗜酸粒细胞性食管炎(EoE)的诊断共识指南。这些指南是否为 EoE 制定了标准化的诊断标准尚不清楚。我们旨在确定 EoE 指南是否对 EoE 文献中报告的诊断标准产生了影响,以及以前观察到的诊断标准的可变性是否变得更加统一。
两名调查员使用预设的搜索策略,独立对 2007 年 1 月 1 日至 2010 年 6 月 30 日期间所有报道人类 EoE 的 MEDLINE 文献进行了搜索,并对 2007-2010 年美国胃肠病学会和美国胃肠病协会会议的会议记录进行了搜索。从所有相关文献中提取数据。
在确定的 799 篇文献中,纳入了 149 篇原始报告、99 篇综述和 165 篇摘要。总共,32 篇原始报告(21%)使用的诊断标准与共识指南的三个组成部分中的每一个都一致。与指南发布前相比,指南发布后发表的原始文章明显增加(31%比 6%,P<0.001)。将 15 个嗜酸性粒细胞/高倍视野(eos/hpf)作为组织学切点的原始文章比例显著增加(P=0.001)。活检方案和嗜酸性粒细胞计数方法仍存在很大差异。大多数原始文章未报告显微镜高倍视野(HPF)面积。
与共识指南一致的诊断标准的原始报告比例显著增加。然而,大多数文章仍不符合指南中的所有三个标准,并且活检和嗜酸性粒细胞计数方案仍存在显著差异。需要对活检和嗜酸性粒细胞计数方案进行标准化。