Suppr超能文献

九种用于诊断人类肝囊型包虫病及与其他肝脏局灶性病变进行鉴别诊断的商业血清学检测方法的评估:一项诊断准确性研究。

Evaluation of Nine Commercial Serological Tests for the Diagnosis of Human Hepatic Cyst Echinococcosis and the Differential Diagnosis with Other Focal Liver Lesions: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

作者信息

Tamarozzi Francesca, Longoni Silvia Stefania, Vola Ambra, Degani Monica, Tais Stefano, Rizzi Eleonora, Prato Marco, Scarso Salvatore, Silva Ronaldo, Brunetti Enrico, Bisoffi Zeno, Perandin Francesca

机构信息

Department of Infectious Tropical Diseases and Microbiology, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, 37024 Verona, Italy.

Department of Medical Sciences and Infectious Diseases, IRCCS San Matteo Hospital Foundation, 27100 Pavia, Italy.

出版信息

Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Jan 25;11(2):167. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11020167.

Abstract

The differential diagnosis of hepatic cystic echinococcosis (CE) may be challenging. When imaging is insufficient, serology can be applied, but no consensus diagnostic algorithm exists. We evaluated the performances of nine serological tests commercialized in Europe for the diagnosis of "echinococcosis". We performed a diagnostic accuracy study using a panel of sera from patients with hepatic CE ( = 45 "liquid" content stages, = 25 "solid" content stages) and non-CE focal liver lesions ( = 54 with "liquid" content, = 11 with "solid" content). The diagnosis and staging of CE were based on ultrasound (gold standard). Nine commercial seroassays (5 ELISA, 2 WB, 1 Chemiluminescence Immunoassay [CLIA] and 1 Immunochromatographic test [ICT]) were the index tests. Sensitivity (Se) ranged from 43 to 94% and from 31 to 87%, and specificity (Sp) from 68 to 100% and from 94 to 100%, when borderline results were considered positive or negative, respectively. Three seroassays (2 ELISA, 1 WB) were excluded from further analyses due to poor performances. When tests were combined, Sp was 98-100%. The best results were obtained using the WB-LDBIO alone (Se 83%) or as a third test after two non-WB tests (Se 67-86%). A validated WB or two non-WB tests, read with stringent criteria (borderline = negative and considered positive only if concordant positive), possibly confirmed by the WB, appear sensible approaches.

摘要

肝囊性棘球蚴病(CE)的鉴别诊断可能具有挑战性。当影像学检查结果不充分时,可以应用血清学检查,但目前尚无共识性的诊断算法。我们评估了欧洲商业化的九种血清学检测方法对“棘球蚴病”的诊断性能。我们使用一组来自肝CE患者(45例“液性”内容物期,25例“实性”内容物期)和非CE肝脏局灶性病变患者(54例“液性”内容物,11例“实性”内容物)的血清进行了诊断准确性研究。CE的诊断和分期基于超声(金标准)。九种商业血清学检测方法(5种酶联免疫吸附测定[ELISA]、2种免疫印迹法[WB]、1种化学发光免疫测定[CLIA]和1种免疫层析试验[ICT])作为指标检测方法。当将临界结果分别视为阳性或阴性时,敏感性(Se)范围为43%至94%和31%至87%,特异性(Sp)范围为68%至100%和94%至100%。由于性能不佳,三种血清学检测方法(2种ELISA,1种WB)被排除在进一步分析之外。当检测方法联合使用时,Sp为98%至100%。单独使用WB-LDBIO(Se 83%)或在两项非WB检测后作为第三种检测方法(Se 67%至86%)可获得最佳结果。采用经过验证的WB或两种非WB检测方法,以严格标准解读(临界值=阴性,仅当结果一致为阳性时才视为阳性),可能经WB确认,似乎是合理的方法。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c0a3/7911993/20e30e460133/diagnostics-11-00167-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验