• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

回顾修订后的登革热病例分类的发展、证据基础和应用。

Reviewing the development, evidence base, and application of the revised dengue case classification.

机构信息

Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR_WHO), Geneva, Switzerland.

出版信息

Pathog Glob Health. 2012 May;106(2):94-101. doi: 10.1179/2047773212Y.0000000017.

DOI:10.1179/2047773212Y.0000000017
PMID:22943544
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3408880/
Abstract

With the example of dengue, an evidence-based approach to prospectively develop a case classification is described, gathering evidence for identifying strength and weaknesses of the existing model, collecting new data describing the disease as it occurs globally, further developing a new model that can be applied in practice and field testing the newly developed model in comparison to the previous model. For each step in this process, the highest available level of evidence has been applied. This process has been initiated by the World Health Organization's (WHO) Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) and WHO's Department for Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTD), developing the following for dengue. Since the early 1970s, dengue has been classified into dengue fever, dengue haemorrhagic fever grades I and II and dengue shock syndrome grades III and IV (DF/DHF/DSS). However, in recent years, a growing number of dengue clinicians have questioned the shortcomings of this scheme. The issues have revolved around the complexity of confirming DHF in clinical practice, misclassifying severe cases as DF, and the emphasis on haemorrhage rather than plasma leakage as the underlying problem in most severe dengue cases. Step 1: A systematic literature review highlighted the shortcomings of the DF/DHF/DSS scheme: (1) difficulties in applying the criteria for DHF/DSS; (2) the tourniquet test has a low sensitivity for distinguishing between DHF and DF; and (3) most DHF criteria had a large variability in frequency of occurrence. Step 2: An analysis of regional and national dengue guidelines and their application in the clinical practice showed a need to re-evaluate and standardize guidelines as the actual ones showed a large variation of definitions, an inconsistent application by medical staff, and a lack of diagnostic facilities necessary for the DHF diagnosis in frontline services. Step 3: A prospective cohort study in seven countries, confirmed the difficulties in applying the DF/DHF/DSS criteria even in tertiary care hospitals, that DF/DHF/DSS do not represent levels of disease severity and that a clear distinction between severe dengue (defined by plasma leakage and/or severe haemorrhage, and/or organ failure) and (non-severe) dengue can be made using highly sensitive and specific criteria. In contrast, the sub-grouping of (non-severe) dengue into two further severity levels was only possible with criteria that gave approximately 70% sensitivity and specificity. Step 4: Three regional expert consensus groups in the Americas and Asia concluded that 'dengue is one disease entity with different clinical presentations and often with unpredictable clinical evolution and outcome' and that, revising the results of Step 3, DF/DHF/DSS is not related to disease severity. Step 5: In a global expert consensus meeting at WHO in Geneva/Switzerland the evidence collected in Steps 1-4 was reviewed and a revised scheme was developed and accepted, distinguishing: dengue with or without warning signs and severe dengue; the further field testing and acquisition of further prospective evidence of the revised scheme was recommended. Step 6: In 18 countries, the usefulness and applicability of the revised classification compared to the DF/DHF/DSS scheme were tested showing clear results in favour of the revised classification. Step 7: Studies are under way on the predictive value of warning signs for severe dengue and on criteria for the clinical diagnosis of dengue which will complete the evidence foundation of the revised classification. The analysis has shown that the revised dengue case classification is better able to standardize clinical management, raise awareness about unnecessary interventions, match patient categories with specific treatment instructions, and make the key messages of patient management understandable for all health care staff dealing with dengue patients. Furthermore, the evidence-based approach to develop prospectively the dengue case classification could be a model approach for other disease classifications.

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/539f/4001494/ad6187e359df/pgh-106-02-094-f02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/539f/4001494/7f36416bfb89/pgh-106-02-094-f01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/539f/4001494/ad6187e359df/pgh-106-02-094-f02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/539f/4001494/7f36416bfb89/pgh-106-02-094-f01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/539f/4001494/ad6187e359df/pgh-106-02-094-f02.jpg
摘要

以登革热为例,描述了一种基于证据的前瞻性病例分类方法,该方法旨在收集证据,以确定现有模型的优势和劣势,收集描述全球疾病发生情况的新数据,进一步开发可在实践中应用的新模型,并将新开发的模型与之前的模型进行现场测试。在这个过程的每一步中,都应用了最高级别的现有证据。这一过程是由世界卫生组织(WHO)热带病研究与培训特别规划署(TDR)和 WHO 控制被忽视热带病司(NTD)发起的,为登革热制定了以下方案。自 20 世纪 70 年代初以来,登革热一直分为登革热、登革出血热 I 级和 II 级以及登革休克综合征 III 级和 IV 级(DF/DHF/DSS)。然而,近年来,越来越多的登革热临床医生对该方案的缺点提出了质疑。这些问题主要集中在确认 DHF 临床实践的复杂性、将严重病例误诊为 DF、以及强调出血而不是血浆渗漏是大多数严重登革热病例的根本问题上。步骤 1:系统文献回顾突出了 DF/DHF/DSS 方案的缺点:(1)应用 DHF/DSS 标准的困难;(2)止血带试验对区分 DHF 和 DF 的敏感性较低;(3)大多数 DHF 标准的发生频率差异较大。步骤 2:对区域和国家登革热指南及其在临床实践中的应用进行分析表明,需要重新评估和标准化指南,因为实际指南在定义、医务人员的不一致应用以及前线服务中进行 DHF 诊断所需的诊断设施方面存在较大差异。步骤 3:在七个国家进行的前瞻性队列研究证实,即使在三级保健医院,应用 DF/DHF/DSS 标准也存在困难,DF/DHF/DSS 并不代表疾病严重程度,并且可以使用高度敏感和特异的标准来区分严重登革热(定义为血浆渗漏和/或严重出血,和/或器官衰竭)和(非严重)登革热。相比之下,使用大约 70%的灵敏度和特异性的标准,只能将(非严重)登革热分为两个进一步的严重程度级别。步骤 4:美洲和亚洲的三个区域专家共识小组得出结论,“登革热是一种具有不同临床表现的疾病实体,常常具有不可预测的临床演变和结果”,并修订了第 3 步的结果,DF/DHF/DSS 与疾病严重程度无关。步骤 5:在瑞士日内瓦世卫组织举行的一次全球专家共识会议上,审查了在步骤 1-4 中收集的证据,并制定并接受了一个修订方案,区分:有或没有预警信号的登革热和严重登革热;建议进一步现场测试和获取修订方案的前瞻性证据。步骤 6:在 18 个国家,对修订后的分类与 DF/DHF/DSS 方案的有用性和适用性进行了测试,结果明显有利于修订后的分类。步骤 7:正在对预警信号对严重登革热的预测价值以及登革热的临床诊断标准进行研究,这将完善修订后的分类的证据基础。分析表明,修订后的登革热病例分类能够更好地规范临床管理,提高对不必要干预的认识,将患者类别与特定治疗说明相匹配,并使所有处理登革热患者的医护人员都能理解患者管理的关键信息。此外,前瞻性开发登革热病例分类的循证方法可以成为其他疾病分类的一种模式方法。

相似文献

1
Reviewing the development, evidence base, and application of the revised dengue case classification.回顾修订后的登革热病例分类的发展、证据基础和应用。
Pathog Glob Health. 2012 May;106(2):94-101. doi: 10.1179/2047773212Y.0000000017.
2
Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19.在基层医疗机构或医院门诊环境中,如果患者出现以下症状和体征,可判断其是否患有 COVID-19。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 May 20;5(5):CD013665. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013665.pub3.
3
Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review.心理健康问题的居家治疗:一项系统综述
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(15):1-139. doi: 10.3310/hta5150.
4
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapy for Gaucher's disease: a systematic review.戈谢病酶替代疗法的临床疗效和成本效益:一项系统评价。
Health Technol Assess. 2006 Jul;10(24):iii-iv, ix-136. doi: 10.3310/hta10240.
5
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine and vinorelbine in non-small-cell lung cancer.对紫杉醇、多西他赛、吉西他滨和长春瑞滨在非小细胞肺癌中的临床疗效和成本效益进行的快速系统评价。
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(32):1-195. doi: 10.3310/hta5320.
6
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.系统性药理学治疗慢性斑块状银屑病:网络荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;4(4):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4.
7
Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy.利用预后信息为乳腺癌患者选择辅助性全身治疗的成本效益
Health Technol Assess. 2006 Sep;10(34):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-204. doi: 10.3310/hta10340.
8
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer.拓扑替康治疗卵巢癌的临床有效性和成本效益的快速系统评价。
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(28):1-110. doi: 10.3310/hta5280.
9
Health professionals' experience of teamwork education in acute hospital settings: a systematic review of qualitative literature.医疗专业人员在急症医院环境中团队合作教育的经验:对定性文献的系统综述
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Apr;14(4):96-137. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-1843.
10
Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis.抗抑郁药治疗成人慢性疼痛的疼痛管理:一项网络荟萃分析。
Health Technol Assess. 2024 Oct;28(62):1-155. doi: 10.3310/MKRT2948.

引用本文的文献

1
A comprehensive overview of the burden, prevention, and therapeutic aspects of arboviral diseases in India.印度虫媒病毒疾病的负担、预防及治疗方面的全面概述。
Commun Med (Lond). 2025 Jul 1;5(1):254. doi: 10.1038/s43856-025-00968-7.
2
Impact of prior dengue infection on severity and outcomes: meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials.既往登革热感染对疾病严重程度和结局的影响:安慰剂对照试验的荟萃分析
Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2024 Dec 4;48:e129. doi: 10.26633/RPSP.2024.129. eCollection 2024.
3
Postural fall in systolic blood pressure is a useful warning sign in dengue fever.

本文引用的文献

1
Comparison and critical appraisal of dengue clinical guidelines and their use in Asia and Latin America.登革热临床指南的比较和评价及其在亚洲和拉丁美洲的应用。
Int Health. 2009 Dec;1(2):133-40. doi: 10.1016/j.inhe.2009.08.006.
2
Evaluation of the traditional and revised WHO classifications of Dengue disease severity.评估世界卫生组织传统分类和修订分类对登革热疾病严重程度的分类。
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011 Nov;5(11):e1397. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001397. Epub 2011 Nov 8.
3
Dengue classification: current WHO vs. the newly suggested classification for better clinical application?
体位性收缩压下降是登革热的一个有用的预警信号。
F1000Res. 2023 Dec 18;12:816. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.132714.2. eCollection 2023.
4
Diagnostic accuracy of the WHO clinical definitions for dengue and implications for surveillance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.世界卫生组织登革热临床定义的诊断准确性及其对监测的影响:系统评价和荟萃分析。
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021 Apr 26;15(4):e0009359. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009359. eCollection 2021 Apr.
5
Viral evolution sustains a dengue outbreak of enhanced severity.病毒进化维持了登革热疫情的加重。
Emerg Microbes Infect. 2021 Dec;10(1):536-544. doi: 10.1080/22221751.2021.1899057.
6
Chikungunya Case Classification after the Experience with Dengue Classification: How Much Time Will We Lose?基孔肯雅热病例分类:我们会因此浪费多少时间?——基于登革热分类的经验
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020 Feb;102(2):257-259. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.19-0608.
7
Characterization of clinical patterns of dengue patients using an unsupervised machine learning approach.应用无监督机器学习方法对登革热患者的临床模式进行特征描述。
BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Jul 22;19(1):649. doi: 10.1186/s12879-019-4282-y.
8
Spectrum, Manifestations and Outcomes of Dengue Infection in Individuals with and without Liver Disease.有肝病和无肝病个体登革热感染的谱、表现及结局
J Clin Transl Hepatol. 2019 Jun 28;7(2):106-111. doi: 10.14218/JCTH.2018.00047. Epub 2019 May 9.
9
A 15-year review of dengue hospitalizations in Singapore: Reducing admissions without adverse consequences, 2003 to 2017.2003 年至 2017 年新加坡 15 年登革热住院患者回顾:减少住院人数而无不良后果。
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019 May 15;13(5):e0007389. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007389. eCollection 2019 May.
10
30 years of fatal dengue cases in Brazil: a review.巴西 30 年来致命登革热病例:综述。
BMC Public Health. 2019 Mar 21;19(1):329. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6641-4.
登革热分类:世界卫生组织现行分类与新建议的分类相比,哪种更有利于临床应用?
J Med Assoc Thai. 2011 Aug;94 Suppl 3:S74-84.
4
Dengue--how best to classify it.登革热——如何进行最佳分类。
Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Sep;53(6):563-7. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir451. Epub 2011 Aug 10.
5
Multicentre prospective study on dengue classification in four South-east Asian and three Latin American countries.多中心前瞻性研究:在四个东南亚国家和三个拉丁美洲国家对登革热进行分类。
Trop Med Int Health. 2011 Aug;16(8):936-48. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2011.02793.x. Epub 2011 May 30.
6
Usefulness and applicability of the revised dengue case classification by disease: multi-centre study in 18 countries.修订后的登革热病例分类在疾病中的有用性和适用性:18 个国家的多中心研究。
BMC Infect Dis. 2011 Apr 21;11:106. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-11-106.
7
Application of revised dengue classification criteria as a severity marker of dengue viral infection in Indonesia.修订后的登革热分类标准在印度尼西亚作为登革热病毒感染严重程度标志物的应用。
Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2010 Sep;41(5):1088-94.
8
Bridging the gaps between research, policy and practice in low- and middle-income countries: a survey of researchers.弥合中低收入国家研究、政策和实践之间的差距:对研究人员的调查。
CMAJ. 2010 Jun 15;182(9):E350-61. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.081164. Epub 2010 May 3.
9
Dengue hemorrhagic fever: the sensitivity and specificity of the world health organization definition for identification of severe cases of dengue in Thailand, 1994-2005.登革出血热:1994-2005 年泰国世界卫生组织对严重登革病例定义的敏感性和特异性。
Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Apr 15;50(8):1135-43. doi: 10.1086/651268.
10
The Bamako call to action: research for health.《巴马科行动呼吁:健康研究》
Lancet. 2008 Nov 29;372(9653):1855. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61789-4.