Suppr超能文献

成人和儿童莱姆病血清诊断准确性试验的比较:一项网状Meta分析

Comparison of the Serodiagnostic Accuracy Tests for Lyme Disease in Adults and Children: A Network Meta-Analysis.

作者信息

Ma Weijiang, Li Jing, Gao Li, Wu Xinya, Ma Weijie, Yang Jiaru, Zhong Lei, Song Jieqin, Peng Li, Bao Fukai, Liu Aihua

机构信息

Yunnan Province Key Laboratory of Children's Major Diseases Research, Department of Pathogens Biology and Immunology, Faculty of Basic Medicine Sciences, Kunming Medical University, Kunming 650500, China.

Medical Records Room, Suining Municipal Hospital of TCM, Suining 629000, China.

出版信息

Pathogens. 2025 Aug 6;14(8):784. doi: 10.3390/pathogens14080784.

Abstract

As direct detection methods of are limited, serology plays an important role in diagnosing Lyme disease (LD). There are various types of Lyme serological tests with varying diagnostic accuracy, so it is necessary to compare and rank them. The aim of this study is to compare the accuracy of various serological diagnostic methods for LD using network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched the Cochrane Library and PubMed databases for all serological diagnostic accuracy studies published from the discovery of LD until June 2024. After screening, we assessed the quality of the included studies with QUADAS-C and extracted relevant data. We calculated the Q* index of the receiver operating characteristic curve for each diagnostic test. Meta-disc 2.0 and Stata 15.0 were used to perform traditional meta-analysis and NMA with the gold standard (the comprehensive evaluation) as a reference. We then compared the Q* index values between different methods using two-by-two comparisons and ranked them accordingly. A total of 52 studies with 181,032 participants, including 5318 patients with LD, were included. These studies covered 14 diagnostic methods. The results of the NMA suggest that modified two-tiered testing (MTTT), C6 enzyme immunoassay (EIA), and standard two-tiered testing (STTT) rank in the top three among the 14 methods in terms of Q* index, with MTTT being the highest, followed by C6 EIA and STTT. MTTT and C6 EIA have higher overall diagnostic performance, and their accuracy is not inferior to that of the widely used STTT (PROSPERO CRD42022378326).

摘要

由于莱姆病的直接检测方法有限,血清学在莱姆病(LD)的诊断中起着重要作用。有多种类型的莱姆病血清学检测方法,其诊断准确性各不相同,因此有必要对它们进行比较和排名。本研究的目的是使用网络荟萃分析(NMA)比较各种莱姆病血清学诊断方法的准确性。我们在Cochrane图书馆和PubMed数据库中搜索了从莱姆病发现到2024年6月发表的所有血清学诊断准确性研究。筛选后,我们用QUADAS - C评估纳入研究的质量并提取相关数据。我们计算了每种诊断测试的受试者操作特征曲线的Q指数。使用Meta - disc 2.0和Stata 15.应用程序以金标准(综合评估)作为参考进行传统荟萃分析和NMA。然后,我们通过两两比较比较不同方法之间的Q指数值,并据此进行排名。总共纳入了52项研究,涉及181,032名参与者,其中包括5318例莱姆病患者。这些研究涵盖了14种诊断方法。NMA的结果表明,在14种方法中,改良两级检测(MTTT)、C6酶免疫测定(EIA)和标准两级检测(STTT)在Q*指数方面排名前三,MTTT最高,其次是C6 EIA和STTT。MTTT和C6 EIA具有较高的总体诊断性能,其准确性不低于广泛使用的STTT(PROSPERO CRD42022378326)。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ff3c/12389093/fdf607bb9c02/pathogens-14-00784-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