摘要
目的应用诊断性试验Meta分析,定量评价胶体金免疫层析法(GICA)与荧光偏振法(FPA)诊断布鲁氏菌病的准确性。方法通过检索中文数据库(CNKI、万方、CBM)、英文数据库(PubMed、Embase、Cochrane),分别收集GICA和FPA诊断布鲁氏菌病的相关文献,检索截至2021年12月。按照纳入标准及排除标准筛选文献、提取数据,采用RevMan5.3对入选文献进行质量评价,应用Stata12.0与SAS9.4拟合双变量随机效应模型评价GICA与FPA诊断布鲁氏菌病准确性的结果。结果纳入符合标准的文献29篇,共22914个样本。诊断布鲁氏菌感染的合并灵敏度、特异度、阳性似然比、阴性似然比、DOR值和AUC,GICA法分别为95%(95%CI:90%~97%)、96%(95%CI:93%~98%)、25.20(95%CI:13.34~47.58)、0.06(95%CI:0.03~0.10)、418.30(95%CI:170.98~1027.03)和0.99(95%CI:0.97~0.99),FPA法分别为96%(95%CI:94%~97%)、99%(95%CI:96%~100%)、72.29(95%CI:24.03~217.51)、0.04(95%CI:0.03~0.06)、1821.75(95%CI:516.42~6426.52)和0.99(95%CI:0.97~0.99),且两种方法合并DOR值的差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。Deek’s漏斗图检验显示两种方法均无明显发表偏倚。结论在布鲁氏菌病的实验室检测中,GICA与FPA均有良好的诊断价值,FPA的综合诊断效能更高。
To quantitatively evaluate the rapid diagnostic accuracy of colloidal gold-immunochromatographic assay(GICA)and fluorescence polarization analysis(FPA)in the diagnosis of brucellosis infection,we performed a meta-analysis of diagnostic tests.We searched the literature on GICA and FPA in the diagnosis of brucellosis in the PubMed database of the National Library of Medicine,EMBASE database of the Dutch Medical Digest,Cochrane Clinical Trials Database,China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI),Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform,and Chinese BioMedical Literature Database(CBM)for records as late as December 2021.The retrieved literature was screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria,and data were extracted from the included literature.The quality of the included literature was assessed with the software RevMan version 5.3.The accuracy of GICA and FPA in diagnosing brucellosis was assessed in Stata12.0 and SAS9.4 software with a bivariate random effects model.In total,29 studies with 22914 cases were included.Accuracy metrics were obtained with a bivariate random-effect mode1.The meta-analysis indicated that the pooled sensitivity,specificity,positive likelihood ratio,negative likelihood ratio,diagnostic odds radio,and summary receiver operating characteristic(SROC)area under the curve(AUC)for GICA were 95%(95%CI:90%-97%),96%(95%CI:93%-98%),25.20(95%CI:13.34-47.58),0.06(95%CI:0.03-0.10),418.30(95%CI:170.98-1027.03),and 0.99(95%CI:0.97-0.99),respectively.Those for FPA were 96%(95%CI:94%-97%),99%(95%CI:96%-100%),72.29(95%CI:24.03-217.51),0.04(95%CI:0.03-0.06),1821.75(95%CI:516.42-6426.52),and 0.99(95%CI:0.97-0.99),respectively.Deek’s test indicated no publication bias.GICA and FPA therefore have good value in the laboratory diagnosis of brucellosis.FPA is more sensitive than GICA for brucellosis detection,accounting for comparison with DOR(P<0.001).
作者
刘雅雯
王显军
杨丽萍
LIU Ya-wen;WANG Xian-jun;YANG Li-ping(Department of Epidemiology,School of Public Health,Cheeloo College of Medicine,Shandong University,Jinan 250012,China;Shandong Center for Disease Control and Prevention,Jinan 250014,China)
出处
《中国人兽共患病学报》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2023年第4期409-417,共9页
Chinese Journal of Zoonoses
关键词
布鲁氏菌病
胶体金免疫层析法
荧光偏振法
META分析
brucellosis
colloidal gold-immunochromatographic assay
fluorescence polarization analysis
meta-analysis
