Suppr超能文献

化学发光法检测 IgA 抗转谷氨酰胺酶的诊断准确性:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Diagnostic Accuracy of IgA Anti-Transglutaminase Assessed by Chemiluminescence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

机构信息

Department of Pediatrics, Marche Polytechnic University, 60123 Ancona, Italy.

Bioinformatics Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Catania, 95131 Catania, Italy.

出版信息

Nutrients. 2024 Jul 26;16(15):2427. doi: 10.3390/nu16152427.

Abstract

A new chemiluminescence immunoassay method (CLIA) for detecting IgA anti-transglutaminase (atTG IgA) in celiac disease (CD) has prompted inquiries into its diagnostic performance. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing CLIA with traditional enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA). We searched PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases up to March 2024. The diagnostic references were intestinal biopsy and ESPGHAN guidelines. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of atTG IgA assessed by CLIA and the odds ratio (OR) between the assays. Eleven articles were eligible for the systematic review and seven for the meta-analysis. Sensitivity and specificity of atTG IgA CLIA-assay were 0.98 (95% CI, 0.95-0.99) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.94-0.99), respectively. The sensitivity of atTG IgA antibody detection did not significantly vary across the three assay modalities examined (CLIA vs. ELISA OR: 1.08 (95% CI, 0.56-2.11; = 0.8); CLIA vs. FEIA OR: 6.97 (95% CI, 0.60-81.03; = 0.1). The specificity of atTG IgA assessed by FEIA was higher than for CLIA (OR 0.17 (95% CI, 0.05-0.62); < 0.007). According to the systematic review, normalization of atTG IgA levels in CD patients following a gluten-free diet was delayed when using CLIA compared to ELISA and FEIA methods. Conflicting findings were reported on the antibody threshold to use in order to avoid biopsy confirmation.

摘要

一种新的化学发光免疫分析方法(CLIA)用于检测乳糜泻(CD)中的 IgA 抗转谷氨酰胺酶(atTG IgA),这引发了对其诊断性能的研究。我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,比较了 CLIA 与传统酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)和荧光酶免疫分析(FEIA)。我们检索了截至 2024 年 3 月的 PubMed、Medline 和 Embase 数据库。诊断参考是肠道活检和 ESPGHAN 指南。我们计算了 CLIA 评估的 atTG IgA 的敏感性和特异性,以及两种检测方法之间的比值比(OR)。有 11 篇文章符合系统评价的纳入标准,7 篇文章符合荟萃分析的纳入标准。CLIA 检测 atTG IgA 的敏感性和特异性分别为 0.98(95%CI,0.95-0.99)和 0.97(95%CI,0.94-0.99)。三种检测方法的 atTG IgA 抗体检测敏感性没有显著差异(CLIA 与 ELISA 的 OR:1.08(95%CI,0.56-2.11; = 0.8);CLIA 与 FEIA 的 OR:6.97(95%CI,0.60-81.03; = 0.1)。FEIA 评估的 atTG IgA 的特异性高于 CLIA(OR 0.17(95%CI,0.05-0.62); < 0.007)。根据系统评价,与 ELISA 和 FEIA 方法相比,使用 CLIA 时,CD 患者在无麸质饮食后 atTG IgA 水平的正常化延迟。关于为避免活检确认而使用的抗体阈值,报告了相互矛盾的发现。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7e12/11314508/7dc97d01b103/nutrients-16-02427-g001.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