评估一种临床指标作为原发性纤毛运动障碍预测工具的效能
Evaluation of a Clinical Index as a Predictive Tool for Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia.
作者信息
Martinů Vendula, Bořek-Dohalská Lucie, Varényiová Žofia, Uhlík Jiří, Čapek Václav, Pohunek Petr, Koucký Václav
机构信息
Department of Paediatrics, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, 150 06 Prague, Czech Republic.
Department of Histology and Embryology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, 150 00 Prague, Czech Republic.
出版信息
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Jun 14;11(6):1088. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11061088.
BACKGROUND
In primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) there is no single diagnostic test. Different predictive tools have been proposed to guide referral of high-risk patients for further diagnostic workup. We aimed to test clinical index (CI) on a large unselected cohort and compare its characteristics with other widely used tools-PICADAR and NA-CDCF.
METHODS
CI, PICADAR, and NA-CDCF scores were calculated in 1401 patients with suspected PCD referred to our center. Their predictive characteristics were analyzed using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and compared to each other. Nasal nitric oxide (nNO) was measured in 569 patients older than 3 years.
RESULTS
PCD was diagnosed in 67 (4.8%) patients. CI, PICADAR, and NA-CDCF scores were higher in PCD than in nonPCD group (all < 0.001). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for CI was larger than for NA-CDCF ( = 0.005); AUC and AUC did not differ ( = 0.093). An overlap in signs and symptoms among tools was identified. PICADAR could not be assessed in 86 (6.1%) patients without chronic wet cough. For CI laterality or congenital heart defects assessment was not necessary. nNO further improved predictive power of all three tools.
CONCLUSION
CI is a feasible predictive tool for PCD that may outperform PICADAR and NA-CFCD.
背景
在原发性纤毛运动障碍（PCD）中，没有单一的诊断测试。已经提出了不同的预测工具来指导高危患者进行进一步的诊断检查。我们旨在对一个未经过筛选的大型队列进行临床指标（CI）测试，并将其特征与其他广泛使用的工具——PICADAR和NA-CDCF进行比较。
方法
对转诊至我们中心的1401例疑似PCD患者计算CI、PICADAR和NA-CDCF评分。使用受试者工作特征（ROC）曲线分析它们的预测特征，并相互比较。对569例3岁以上患者测量鼻一氧化氮（nNO）。
结果
67例（4.8%）患者被诊断为PCD。PCD组的CI、PICADAR和NA-CDCF评分高于非PCD组（均<0.001）。CI的ROC曲线下面积（AUC）大于NA-CDCF（=0.005）；AUC和AUC无差异（=0.093）。发现各工具之间的体征和症状存在重叠。86例（6.1%）无慢性湿咳的患者无法评估PICADAR。对于CI，无需评估偏侧性或先天性心脏病。nNO进一步提高了所有三种工具的预测能力。
结论
CI是一种可行的PCD预测工具，可能优于PICADAR和NA-CFCD。
Zotero 插件