Suppr超能文献

我们能相信关于即时检测胆固醇的已发表证据吗?一项快速综述。

Can we trust published evidence on point-of-care tests for cholesterol? A rapid review.

作者信息

Mutepfa Chikomborero Cynthia, Hicks Timothy Patrick, Winter Amanda, Dickinson Rachel Emma, Williams Cameron, Harrison Nick, Chidanyika Joe, Newton Julia L, Jones William Stephen, Suklan Jana

机构信息

NIHR HealthTech Research Centre (HRC) in Diagnostic and Technology Evaluation, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2025 Mar 5;15(3):e080726. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080726.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

There is a need to better inform clinicians and decision-makers in primary or community care settings on selecting the appropriate point-of-care tests (POCTs) for screening purposes (as a part of the NHS Health Check Programme). Here we provide an overview of the published analytic validity and diagnostic accuracy studies on POCTs for measuring blood lipids that are available on the UK market to determine whether they meet the accuracy specifications based on the 1995 US National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) recommendations.

DESIGN

Rapid review of analytical validity and diagnostic accuracy studies.

DATA SOURCES

On 12 May 2023, Medline and Embase were searched. Google Scholar was manually scrutinised to identify additional studies. Key article reference lists were also hand-searched.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included analytical validity and diagnostic accuracy studies that compared POCT to laboratory testing (or another POCT) performance for measuring at least total cholesterol (TC) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Identified studies were independently reviewed by two researchers using standardised methods of screening. Where necessary, conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer. Title and abstract as well as full texts were screened using prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of identified studies was assessed using QUADAS-2 for diagnostic accuracy studies and a modified quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL) for analytical validity studies. We assessed the quality of analytical and diagnostic accuracy studies and compared the accuracy of the POCTs for TC, triglyceride (TG), HDL-C and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) against NCEP standards for mean per cent bias, coefficient of variation or total error. We narratively synthesised analytical and clinical validity evidence from retrieved studies.

RESULTS

This study examined analytical and diagnostic accuracy evidence for the selected POCTs. Through the review of 22 studies, 6 POCTs were identified. All retrieved studies were analytical validity assessments, while five of them also reported diagnostic accuracy information. The majority of evidence focused on Cholestech LDX, CardioChek PA and Accutrend Plus. Evidence of between and within-study heterogeneity was found. Precision measures often showed systematic differences between the POCT and reference standards. Most devices, except for Elemark, met at least one NCEP standard for either TC, TG, HDL-C, or LDL-C.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that evidence for two of the devices mostly met the requirements of the NCEP standard of evidence for bias and precision and could be recommended to general practitioners to use in the NHS Health Check programme. These were the Cholestech LDX and the Cobas b101 system.

摘要

目的

有必要让基层或社区医疗环境中的临床医生和决策者更好地了解如何选择合适的即时检验(POCT)用于筛查目的(作为英国国家医疗服务体系健康检查计划的一部分)。在此,我们概述了已发表的关于英国市场上用于测量血脂的POCT的分析效度和诊断准确性研究,以确定它们是否符合基于1995年美国国家胆固醇教育计划(NCEP)建议的准确性规范。

设计

对分析效度和诊断准确性研究进行快速综述。

数据来源

2023年5月12日检索了Medline和Embase。对谷歌学术进行了人工审查以识别其他研究。还手动检索了关键文章的参考文献列表。

纳入标准

我们纳入了将POCT与实验室检测(或另一种POCT)在测量至少总胆固醇(TC)和高密度脂蛋白胆固醇(HDL-C)方面的性能进行比较的分析效度和诊断准确性研究。

数据提取与综合

由两名研究人员使用标准化筛选方法对已识别的研究进行独立审查。必要时,由第三位审查员解决冲突。使用预先设定的纳入和排除标准对标题、摘要以及全文进行筛选。使用QUADAS-2评估已识别研究的诊断准确性研究质量,使用针对分析效度研究的诊断可靠性研究改良质量评估工具(QAREL)评估其质量。我们评估了分析和诊断准确性研究的质量,并将POCT在TC、甘油三酯(TG)、HDL-C和低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C)方面的准确性与NCEP的平均百分比偏差、变异系数或总误差标准进行比较。我们对检索到的研究中的分析和临床效度证据进行了叙述性综合。

结果

本研究检查了所选POCT的分析和诊断准确性证据。通过对22项研究的综述,识别出6种POCT。所有检索到的研究均为分析效度评估,其中5项还报告了诊断准确性信息。大多数证据集中在Cholestech LDX、CardioChek PA和Accutrend Plus上。发现了研究间和研究内的异质性证据。精密度测量通常显示POCT与参考标准之间存在系统差异。除Elemark外,大多数设备在TC、TG、HDL-C或LDL-C方面至少符合一项NCEP标准。

结论

我们发现,两种设备的证据大多符合NCEP关于偏差和精密度的证据标准,可推荐给全科医生在英国国家医疗服务体系健康检查计划中使用。这两种设备是Cholestech LDX和Cobas b101系统。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bb3b/11883607/5d43d24ff504/bmjopen-15-3-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