本文選題：瘧疾 + 診斷試驗(yàn)　； 參考：《中國(guó)病原生物學(xué)雜志》2017年03期

【摘要】：目的通過(guò)診斷試驗(yàn)Meta分析,定量綜合評(píng)價(jià)我國(guó)聚合酶鏈反應(yīng)技術(shù)(PCR)、快速診斷試劑盒(RDTs)、環(huán)介導(dǎo)等溫?cái)U(kuò)增技術(shù)(LAMP)等瘧疾診斷試驗(yàn)的診斷效果。方法根據(jù)檢索策略,檢索CNKI、萬(wàn)方數(shù)據(jù)、維普、PUBMED、PMC等數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù),初篩出公開發(fā)表的關(guān)于瘧疾診斷試驗(yàn)的文獻(xiàn),按照納入與排除標(biāo)準(zhǔn),納入符合條件的文獻(xiàn),進(jìn)行文獻(xiàn)質(zhì)量評(píng)價(jià)并提取相關(guān)數(shù)據(jù),采用SPSS20、RevMan5.3和MetaDiSc1.4繪制漏斗圖、森林圖和SROC曲線。結(jié)果有57篇文獻(xiàn)符合納入標(biāo)準(zhǔn),效應(yīng)量合并分析結(jié)果顯示PCR法檢測(cè)瘧疾的綜合靈敏度為0.99(0.98-0.99),特異度為0.96(0.95-0.97),SROC曲線下面積為0.994 3,診斷優(yōu)勢(shì)比為1056.20(408.08-2 733.68)。RDTs法檢測(cè)惡性瘧的綜合靈敏度為0.93(0.92-0.94),特異度為0.99(0.98-0.99),SROC曲線下面積為0.995 5,診斷優(yōu)勢(shì)比為657.30(365.22-1 182.95);檢測(cè)間日瘧的綜合靈敏度為0.91(0.89-0.92),特異度為0.99(0.98-0.99),SROC曲線下面積為0.990 0,診斷優(yōu)勢(shì)比為656.17(348.21-1 236.51)。LAMP法檢測(cè)惡性瘧的綜合靈敏度為0.93(0.88-0.97),特異度為0.98(0.94-1.00),SROC曲線下面積為0.951 5,診斷優(yōu)勢(shì)比為293.72(77.27-1 116.55);檢測(cè)間日瘧的綜合靈敏度為0.98(0.96-0.99),特異度為0.94(0.88-0.97),SROC曲線下面積為0.996 3,診斷優(yōu)勢(shì)比為1 072.50(237.16-4 850.09)。結(jié)論聚合酶鏈反應(yīng)技術(shù)(PCR)、快速診斷試劑盒(RDTs)、環(huán)介導(dǎo)等溫?cái)U(kuò)增技術(shù)(LAMP)對(duì)瘧疾的診斷準(zhǔn)確性均較高,但各有差異,其中用RDTs檢測(cè)惡性瘧的診斷準(zhǔn)確性比檢測(cè)間日瘧高。
[Abstract]:Objective to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) rapid diagnostic kit (RDTs) and loop mediated isothermal amplification (lamp) by meta analysis. Methods according to the retrieval strategy, CNKI, Wanfang data, PUBMEDMC and other databases were searched, and the published literature on malaria diagnosis test was initially screened. According to the criteria of inclusion and exclusion, the eligible documents were included. Literature quality was evaluated and relevant data were extracted. The funnel map, forest map and SROC curve were drawn by SPSS20 RevMan5.3 and MetaDiSc1.4. Results 57 articles met the inclusion criteria. The results of combination analysis showed that the overall sensitivity of PCR for malaria detection was 0.99 (0.98-0.99), the specificity was 0.96 (0.95-0.97) and the area under the SROC curve was 0.994 3. The diagnostic odds ratio was 1056.20 (408.08-2 733.68) .RDTs was 0.93 (0.92-0.94) for falciparum malaria, and 0.99 (0.98-0.99) for the area under the SROC curve. The diagnostic odds ratio was 657.30 (365.22-1 182.95), the overall sensitivity of vivax malaria was 0.91 (0.89-0.92), the specificity was 0.99 (0.98-0.99) and the area under the SROC curve was 0.990. The diagnostic odds ratio was 656.17 (348.21-1 236.51) .lamp was 0.93 (0.88-0.97), and the area under the SROC curve was 0.98 (0.94-1.00). The diagnostic odds ratio of vivax malaria was 293.72 (77.27-1 116.55), the overall sensitivity of vivax malaria was 0.98 (0.96-0.99), the specificity was 0.94 (0.88-0.97), the area under SROC curve was 0.996 3, and the diagnostic odds ratio was 1 072.50 (237.16-4 850.09). Conclusion the diagnostic accuracy of polymerase chain reaction (PCR), rapid diagnostic kit (RDTs) and cyclic mediated isothermal amplification (lamp) is higher than that of vivax malaria. The diagnostic accuracy of RDTs for falciparum malaria is higher than that for vivax malaria.
【作者單位】： 云南省寄生蟲病防治所云南省瘧疾研究中心云南省蟲媒傳染病防控研究重點(diǎn)實(shí)驗(yàn)室;云南省普洱衛(wèi)生學(xué)校;
【基金】：云南省中青年學(xué)術(shù)技術(shù)帶頭人后備人才項(xiàng)目(No.2015HB075)
【分類號(hào)】：R531.3

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 郭志榮;血吸蟲病診斷試驗(yàn)的評(píng)價(jià)[J];中國(guó)血吸蟲病防治雜志;1992年02期

2 史久華;SARS:實(shí)驗(yàn)室診斷試驗(yàn)[J];國(guó)外醫(yī)學(xué).預(yù)防.診斷.治療用生物制品分冊(cè);2003年04期

3 崔振澤,趙淑琴,蔡栩栩,李曉輝;肺炎支原體肺炎兩種診斷試驗(yàn)的比較[J];小兒急救醫(yī)學(xué);1998年03期

4 楊曉光;Creutzfeldt-Jakob病的新變異:神經(jīng)病學(xué)特點(diǎn)及診斷試驗(yàn)[J];中華醫(yī)學(xué)信息導(dǎo)報(bào);1998年03期

5 邵景東,鄒建宏;嚴(yán)重急呼吸道綜合癥(SARS):實(shí)驗(yàn)室診斷試驗(yàn)[J];中國(guó)國(guó)境衛(wèi)生檢疫雜志;2003年04期

6 ;[J];;年期

，

本文編號(hào)：2080149