...
首页> 外文期刊>Annals of Internal Medicine >Meta-Analysis: Methods for Diagnosing Intravascular Device–Related Bloodstream Infection
【24h】

Meta-Analysis: Methods for Diagnosing Intravascular Device–Related Bloodstream Infection

机译:荟萃分析:诊断血管内装置相关血流感染的方法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: No consensus exists on the best methods for diagnosis of intravascular device (IVD)–related bloodstream infection. nnPurpose: To identify the most accurate methods for diagnosis of IVD-related bloodstream infection. nnData Sources: 51 English-language studies published from 1966 to 31 July 2004. nnStudy Selection: Studies of diagnostic tests for IVD-related bloodstream infection that described a reference standard and provided sufficient data to calculate sensitivity and specificity. nnData Extraction: Study quality, diagnostic tests examined, patient characteristics, prevalence, sensitivity, and specificity. nnData Synthesis: Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated for 8 diagnostic methods. Summary measures of accuracy were Q* (the upper leftmost point on the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve) and mean D (a log odds ratio). Subgroup analyses were used to assess heterogeneity. Overall, the most accurate test was paired quantitative blood culture (Q* = 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.0]), followed by IVD-drawn qualitative blood culture (Q* = 0.89 [CI, 0.79 to 0.99]) and the acridine orange leukocyte cytospin test (Q* = 0.89 [CI, 0.79 to 0.91]). The most accurate catheter segment culture test was quantitative culture (Q* = 0.87 [CI, 0.81 to 0.93]), followed by semi-quantitative culture (Q* = 0.84 [CI, 0.80 to 0.88]). Significant heterogeneity in pooled sensitivity and specificity was observed across all test categories. nnLimitations: The limited number of studies of some of the diagnostic methods precludes precise estimates of accuracy. nnConclusions: Paired quantitative blood culture is the most accurate test for diagnosis of IVD-related bloodstream infection. However, most other methods studied showed acceptable sensitivity and specificity (both >0.75) and negative predictive value (>99%). The positive predictive value of all tests increased greatly with high pretest clinical probability. Catheters should not be cultured routinely but rather only if IVD-related bloodstream infection is suspected clinically.
机译:背景:关于诊断血管内装置(IVD)相关的血流感染的最佳方法尚无共识。目的:找出诊断IVD相关血流感染的最准确方法。 nnData来源:1966年至2004年7月31日发表的51项英语研究。nn研究选择:IVD相关血流感染的诊断测试研究,该研究描述了参考标准,并提供了足够的数据来计算敏感性和特异性。 nn数据提取:研究质量,检查的诊断测试,患者特征,患病率,敏感性和特异性。 nn数据综合:计算了8种诊断方法的合并敏感性和特异性。汇总精度的度量为Q *(汇总接收器工作特性曲线的最左上角)和平均值D(对数优势比)。亚组分析用于评估异质性。总的来说,最准确的测试是配对定量血液培养(Q * = 0.94 [95%CI,0.88至1.0]),然后进行IVD绘制的定性血液培养(Q * = 0.89 [CI,0.79至0.99]), cr啶橙白细胞cytospin测试(Q * == 0.89 [CI,0.79至0.91])。最准确的导管节段培养测试是定量培养(Q * = 0.87 [CI,0.81至0.93]),然后是半定量培养(Q * = 0.84 [CI,0.80至0.88])。在所有测试类别中,观察到的敏感性和特异性的显着异质性。 nnLimitations:对某些诊断方法的研究数量有限,因此无法精确估计准确性。结论:配对定量血培养是诊断IVD相关血流感染的最准确测试。但是,大多数其他研究方法显示出可接受的敏感性和特异性(均> 0.75)和阴性预测值(> 99%)。所有测试的阳性预测值随着预测试的临床概率较高而大大提高。导管不应常规培养,而仅在临床上怀疑与IVD相关的血流感染时才应培养。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号