Department of Primary Care, Health Service of Castilla-La Mancha (SESCAM), Tragacete, Cuenca, Spain.
Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. Health and Social Research Center, Cuenca, Spain; Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Facultad de Enfermería, Cuenca, Spain; Universidad Politécnica y Artística del Paraguay, Asunción, Paraguay.
Atherosclerosis. 2020 Dec;315:81-92. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2020.09.026. Epub 2020 Oct 1.
We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of ankle brachial index (ABI) and toe brachial index (TBI) for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in a wide spectrum of PAD populations and reference standard tests, and to examine variables influencing heterogeneity in the estimates.
Systematic searches in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases were performed, from inception to January 2020. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves (HSROC) were used to summarize the pooled test performance.
Thirty five (patient-level: 1318 patients, limb-level: 5637 limbs) and nine studies (patient-level: 294 patients, limb-level: 826 limbs) were included in ABI and TBI meta-analyses, respectively. The QUADAS-2 tool identified many studies with high risk of bias, especially in the "patient selection" domain. Pooled estimates for ABI in detecting 50% or greater stenosis were sensitivity = 61% (95% CI: 55-69), specificity = 92% (95% CI: 89-95) and dOR = 16.5 (95% CI: 11.5-23.6). Similarly, TBI yielded sensitivity = 81% (95% CI: 70-94), specificity = 77% (95% CI: 66-90) and dOR = 13.1 (95% CI: 7.0-24.8). In a direct comparison of seven studies jointly analyzing ABI and TBI, TBI showed better overall diagnostic accuracy (16.4 vs 11.0 in dOR) at the expense of sensitivity (82% vs 52%), while specificity (77% vs 94%) performed worse in TBI than ABI. Heterogeneity was large in sensitivity for ABI, with variables as different reference standard tests, smoking habit and PAD prevalence accounting for such variability. Similarly, gender, different index test cut-offs and sample size influenced the heterogeneity in TBI specificity.
Though ABI and TBI showed similar diagnostic performance to diagnose PAD, TBI showed far better sensitivity than ABI, especially in "challenging populations", as those exhibiting calcification.
我们旨在比较踝肱指数(ABI)和趾肱指数(TBI)在广泛的外周动脉疾病(PAD)人群和参考标准检测中的诊断准确性,并研究影响估计值异质性的变量。
系统检索 EMBASE、MEDLINE、Web of Science 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库,检索时间截至 2020 年 1 月。使用分层汇总受试者工作特征曲线(HSROC)来总结汇总的检测性能。
ABI 和 TBI 荟萃分析分别纳入了 35 项(患者水平:1318 例患者,肢体水平:5637 个肢体)和 9 项研究(患者水平:294 例患者,肢体水平:826 个肢体)。QUADAS-2 工具确定了许多存在高偏倚风险的研究,特别是在“患者选择”领域。ABI 检测 50%或更大狭窄的汇总估计值为:敏感性=61%(95%可信区间:55-69),特异性=92%(95%可信区间:89-95)和比值比(dOR)=16.5(95%可信区间:11.5-23.6)。同样,TBI 的敏感性=81%(95%可信区间:70-94),特异性=77%(95%可信区间:66-90)和 dOR=13.1(95%可信区间:7.0-24.8)。在联合分析 ABI 和 TBI 的七项研究的直接比较中,TBI 在灵敏度(82%对 52%)方面表现出更好的整体诊断准确性(dOR 为 16.4 对 11.0),但特异性(77%对 94%)在 TBI 中比 ABI 差。ABI 的敏感性存在很大的异质性,不同的参考标准检测、吸烟习惯和 PAD 患病率等变量解释了这种变异性。同样,性别、不同的指数检测截断值和样本量也影响了 TBI 特异性的异质性。
尽管 ABI 和 TBI 在诊断 PAD 方面表现出相似的诊断性能,但 TBI 的敏感性明显优于 ABI,尤其是在那些存在钙化的“挑战性人群”中。