Institute of General Practice, University Hospital Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Institute of Epidemiology I, Helmholtz Zentrum München-German Research Center for Environmental Health, Munich, Germany.
Thorax. 2017 Feb;72(2):109-116. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208704. Epub 2016 Jul 7.
Measurement of FE might substitute bronchial provocation for diagnosing asthma. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of FE measurement compared with established reference standard.
Systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Data sources were Medline, Embase and Scopus up to 29 November 2015. Sensitivity and specificity were estimated using a bivariate model. Additionally, summary receiver-operating characteristic curves were estimated.
26 studies with 4518 participants (median 113) were included. Risk of bias was considered low for six of seven items in five studies and for five items in seven studies. The overall sensitivity in the meta-analysis was 0.65 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.72), the overall specificity 0.82 (0.76 to 0.86), the diagnostic OR 9.23 (6.55 to 13.01) and the area under the curve 0.80 (0.77 to 0.85). In meta-regression analyses, higher cut-off values were associated with increasing specificity (OR 1.46 per 10 ppb increase in cut-off) while there was no association with sensitivity. Sensitivities varied significantly within the different FE devices, but not specificities. Neither prevalence, age, use of bronchoprovocation in >90% of participants or as exclusive reference standard test, nor risk of bias were significantly associated with diagnostic accuracy.
There appears to be a fair accuracy of FE for making the diagnosis of asthma. The overall specificity was higher than sensitivity, which indicates a higher diagnostic potential for ruling in than for ruling out the diagnosis of asthma.
用力呼气量(FE)的测量可能可以替代支气管激发试验来诊断哮喘。我们旨在研究与既定参考标准相比,FE 测量的诊断准确性。
系统评价和诊断荟萃分析。数据来源为 Medline、Embase 和 Scopus,截至 2015 年 11 月 29 日。使用双变量模型估计敏感性和特异性。此外,还估计了综合受试者工作特征曲线。
纳入了 26 项研究,共 4518 名参与者(中位数 113 岁)。五项研究中有六项研究和七项研究中有五项研究的七个项目中的风险偏倚被认为较低。荟萃分析中的总体敏感性为 0.65(95%CI 0.58 至 0.72),总体特异性为 0.82(0.76 至 0.86),诊断比值比为 9.23(6.55 至 13.01),曲线下面积为 0.80(0.77 至 0.85)。在元回归分析中,较高的截断值与特异性增加相关(截断值每增加 10 ppb,比值比增加 1.46),而与敏感性无关。在不同的 FE 设备中,敏感性差异显著,但特异性无差异。FE 诊断准确性与流行率、年龄、90%以上的参与者使用支气管激发试验或作为唯一的参考标准检测、以及偏倚风险均无显著相关性。
FE 似乎对诊断哮喘有一定的准确性。总体特异性高于敏感性,这表明其对诊断哮喘的诊断能力更高,更适用于确诊而非排除哮喘的诊断。