Gopalswamy N, Stelling H P, Markert R J, Maimon H N, Wahlen S D, Haddy R I
Department of Medicine, Wright State University School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio.
Arch Fam Med. 1994 Dec;3(12):1043-8. doi: 10.1001/archfami.3.12.1043.
Some studies suggest that immunochemical fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) and HemoQuant are more efficient at detecting fecal occult blood than the commonly employed Hemoccult II (guaiac) test. We undertook this study to determine whether an immunochemical test either alone or in combination with a guaiac test gives efficiency superior to the Hemoccult II test in predicting significant gastrointestinal tract disease.
Criterion standard, prospective, blinded.
Referral population of ambulatory patients at an institutional and a private hospital.
Eight-one patients referred to a gastroenterologist and in whom colonoscopy was indicated.
While on a restricted diet, patients made preparations for FOBTs from three consecutive bowel movements. Patients then underwent colonoscopy. Polyps larger than 1 cm in size, carcinoma of the colon, peptic ulcers, gastric erosions, and angiodysplasia were considered to be likely causes of occult gastrointestinal tract bleeding.
Using colonoscopy results as the reference standard, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for each of eight tests or pair of tests were compared with those of Hemoccult II.
Of 81 patients, 10 had significant lower gastrointestinal tract lesions and six had significant upper gastrointestinal tract lesions. Hemoccult SENSA, Heme-Select, and FECA-EIA were shown to be more sensitive than Hemoccult II but slightly less specific. Paired tests showed less efficiency than Hemoccult II alone.
We did not find an ideal test or pair of tests; however, Hemoccult SENSA exhibited higher sensitivity than Hemoccult II and many other tests. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values of many of the FOBTs were believed to be low. We recommend that physicians consider FOBTs only as adjuncts to history and physical examination findings in deciding how to proceed in diagnosing gastrointestinal tract disease.
一些研究表明,免疫化学粪便潜血试验(FOBTs)和血红蛋白定量检测在检测粪便潜血方面比常用的邻联甲苯胺法(愈创木脂)潜血试验更有效。我们进行这项研究以确定免疫化学试验单独使用或与邻联甲苯胺法试验联合使用在预测重大胃肠道疾病方面是否比邻联甲苯胺法潜血试验Ⅱ更有效。
标准对照、前瞻性、盲法研究。
一家机构医院和一家私立医院的门诊转诊患者群体。
81名转诊至胃肠病专家处且需进行结肠镜检查的患者。
在饮食受限期间,患者连续三次排便后为粪便潜血试验做准备。然后患者接受结肠镜检查。直径大于1厘米的息肉、结肠癌、消化性溃疡、胃糜烂和血管发育异常被视为潜在的胃肠道隐匿性出血原因。
以结肠镜检查结果作为参考标准,将八项试验或试验组合中每项的敏感性、特异性以及阳性和阴性预测值与邻联甲苯胺法潜血试验Ⅱ的相应指标进行比较。
81名患者中,10名有重大下消化道病变,6名有重大上消化道病变。结果显示,免疫化学潜血试验(Hemoccult SENSA)、血红蛋白选择试验(Heme-Select)和粪便酶免疫测定(FECA-EIA)比邻联甲苯胺法潜血试验Ⅱ更敏感,但特异性略低。联合试验的有效性低于单独使用邻联甲苯胺法潜血试验Ⅱ。
我们未找到理想的单一试验或试验组合;然而,免疫化学潜血试验(Hemoccult SENSA)比邻联甲苯胺法潜血试验Ⅱ及许多其他试验表现出更高的敏感性。许多粪便潜血试验的敏感性、特异性和阳性预测值据信较低。我们建议医生在决定如何进行胃肠道疾病诊断时,仅将粪便潜血试验视为病史和体格检查结果的辅助手段。