Suppr超能文献

粪便钙卫蛋白检测炎症性肠病:系统评价和试验准确性的探索性 Meta 分析。

Faecal calprotectin to detect inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of test accuracy.

机构信息

Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2019 Mar 8;9(3):e027428. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027428.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Test accuracy of faecal calprotectin (FC) testing in primary care is inconclusive. We aimed to assess the test accuracy of FC testing in primary care and compare it to secondary care estimates for the detection of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy using a bivariate random effects model. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science until 31 May 2017 and included studies from auto alerts up until 31 January 2018. Eligible studies measured FC levels in stool samples to detect IBD in adult patients with chronic (at least 6-8 weeks) abdominal symptoms in primary or secondary care. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 criteria. We followed the protocol registered as PROSPERO CRD 42012003287.

RESULTS

38 out of 2168 studies were eligible including five from primary care. Comparison of test accuracy by setting was precluded by extensive heterogeneity. Overall, summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were not recorded. At a threshold of 50 µg/g, sensitivity from separate meta-analysis of four assay types ranged from 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.92) to 0.94 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.90) and specificity from 0.67 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.76) to 0.88 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.94). Across three different definitions of disease, sensitivity ranged from 0.80 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.84) to 0.97 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.99) and specificity from 0.67 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.75) to 0.76 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.84). Sensitivity appears to be lower in primary care and is further reduced at a revised threshold of 100 µg/g.

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusive estimates of sensitivity and specificity of FC testing in primary care for the detection of IBD are still missing. There is insufficient evidence in the published literature to support the decision to introduce FC testing in primary care. Studies evaluating FC testing in an appropriate primary care setting are needed.

摘要

目的

粪便钙卫蛋白(FC)检测在初级保健中的准确性仍存在争议。本研究旨在评估 FC 检测在初级保健中的准确性,并与二级保健中对炎症性肠病(IBD)的检测结果进行比较。

方法

系统检索 MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane 图书馆和 Web of Science 数据库,检索时间截止至 2017 年 5 月 31 日,同时自动检索相关文献至 2018 年 1 月 31 日。纳入研究采用双变量随机效应模型进行检测准确性的系统评价和荟萃分析。研究对象为在初级或二级保健机构就诊的慢性(至少 6-8 周)腹痛的成年患者,检测粪便样本中的 FC 水平以诊断 IBD。采用诊断准确性研究质量评估工具(QUADAS-2)对偏倚风险和适用性进行评估。本研究遵循 PROSPERO CRD42012003287 号方案进行注册。

结果

2168 篇文献中共有 38 篇符合纳入标准,其中 5 篇来自初级保健。由于存在广泛的异质性,故无法比较不同检测环境下的检测准确性。总体而言,未记录敏感性和特异性的综合估计值。4 种不同检测方法的单独荟萃分析显示,在 50μg/g 截断值时,敏感性范围为 0.85(95%CI 0.75-0.92)至 0.94(95%CI 0.75-0.90),特异性范围为 0.67(95%CI 0.56-0.76)至 0.88(95%CI 0.77-0.94)。基于 3 种不同的疾病定义,敏感性范围为 0.80(95%CI 0.76-0.84)至 0.97(95%CI 0.91-0.99),特异性范围为 0.67(95%CI 0.58-0.75)至 0.76(95%CI 0.66-0.84)。在初级保健中,FC 检测的敏感性似乎较低,而在修订的 100μg/g 截断值时则进一步降低。

结论

FC 检测在初级保健中用于诊断 IBD 的敏感性和特异性仍存在争议,目前仍缺乏确凿的证据支持在初级保健中引入 FC 检测。需要在合适的初级保健环境中开展评估 FC 检测的研究。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d564/6429840/4d2483030c78/bmjopen-2018-027428f01.jpg

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