Fowlie P W, Schmidt B
Department of Child Health, University of Dundee, Scotland.
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1998 Mar;78(2):F92-8. doi: 10.1136/fn.78.2.f92.
To determine the clinical value of common diagnostic tests for bacterial infection in early life.
A Medline search (1966-95) was undertaken to identify studies that reported the assessment of a diagnostic "test," predicting the presence or absence of bacterial infection in infants up to 90 days of age. The quality of each selected study was assessed using defined criteria. Data were extracted twice to minimise errors.
Six hundred and seventy articles were identified. Two independent investigators agreed that 194 studies met the inclusion criteria (kappa = 0.85), 52 of which met primary quality criteria; 23 studies reported data on (a) haematological indices, (b) C reactive protein evaluation, and (c) surface swab assessment. For haematological indices, the likelihood ratios for individual tests ranged from 20.4 (95% confidence interval 7.3 to 56.8) for a white cell count < 7000/mm3 to 0.12 (0.04 to 0.37) for an immature:total (I:T) white cell ratio < 0.2. For C reactive protein evaluation, the likelihood ratios ranged from 12.56 (0.79 to 199.10) for a value of > 6 mg/l to 0.22 (0.08 to 0.65) for a negative value. For surface swab assessment, the likelihood ratios ranged from 33.6 (2.1 to 519.8) for a positive gastric aspirate culture to 0.08 (0.006 to 1.12) for microscopy of ear swab material that did not show any neutrophils. Likelihood ratios for combinations of these individual tests ranged from 10.17 (3.64 to 28.41) to 0.47 (0.22 to 1.00).
The methodological quality of studies assessing the accuracy of diagnostic tests is generally poor. Even in rigorous studies, the reported accuracy of the tests varies enormously and they are of limited value in the diagnosis of infection in this population.
确定早期生活中细菌感染常见诊断检测的临床价值。
进行了一项Medline检索(1966 - 1995年),以识别报告了对一种诊断“检测”进行评估的研究,该检测用于预测90日龄以内婴儿是否存在细菌感染。使用既定标准评估每项入选研究的质量。数据提取了两次以尽量减少误差。
共识别出670篇文章。两名独立研究者一致认为194项研究符合纳入标准(kappa = 0.85),其中52项符合主要质量标准;23项研究报告了关于(a)血液学指标、(b)C反应蛋白评估和(c)表面拭子评估的数据。对于血液学指标,各项检测的似然比范围为:白细胞计数<7000/mm³时为20.4(95%置信区间7.3至56.8),未成熟:总(I:T)白细胞比值<0.2时为0.12(0.04至0.37)。对于C反应蛋白评估,似然比范围为:值>6mg/l时为12.56(0.79至199.10),阴性值时为0.22(0.08至0.65)。对于表面拭子评估,似然比范围为:胃吸出物培养阳性时为33.6(2.1至519.8),耳拭子材料显微镜检查未显示任何中性粒细胞时为0.08(0.006至1.12)。这些个体检测组合的似然比范围为10.17(3.64至28.41)至0.47(0.22至1.00)。
评估诊断检测准确性的研究方法质量普遍较差。即使在严格的研究中,所报告的检测准确性差异也极大,且它们在该人群感染诊断中的价值有限。