论文部分内容阅读
目的目的采用meta分析法对国内外有关中性粒细胞CD64和C-反应蛋白诊断细菌感染的灵敏度和特异性的临床研究。方法收集EMBASE、pubmed、中国知网、维普网、中文科技期刊数据库、万方等中外数据库中以“中性粒细胞CD64”、“C-反应蛋白”、“细菌感染”“灵敏度”、“特异性”等为关键词的文献,以meta分析要求检索原始文献的质量,对符合要求的文献做meta分析,计算CD64和C-反应蛋白诊断细菌感染的优势比,评估两种检测指标的特异性和敏感度。结果检索得出符合备选标准的文献共8篇,临床诊断阳性病例共548例,临床诊断阴性的总病例数712例,meta分析结果显示,CD64在检测细菌感染的敏感性明显高于C-反应蛋白,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),而二者在诊断细菌感染的特异性差异不明显(P>0.05)。结论结论在诊断细菌感染中,CD64的敏感性优于C-反应蛋白,二者诊断细菌感染的特异性效果相当,无明显差异。
Objective To investigate the sensitivity and specificity of meta-analysis on the sensitivity and specificity of neutrophil CD64 and C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of bacterial infection at home and abroad. Methods The data of EMBASE, pubmed, CNKI, VIP, Chinese Science and Technology Database, Wanfang and other Chinese and foreign databases were collected and analyzed with “neutrophil CD64”, “C-reactive protein” and “bacterial infection” “Sensitivity ”, “specificity ” and other keywords, meta-analysis required to retrieve the quality of the original documents, do meta-analysis of the eligible documents, and calculate the advantages of CD64 and C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of bacterial infections To assess the specificity and sensitivity of the two test measures. Results A total of 8 articles were found which met the criteria of selection. There were 548 clinical positive cases and 712 clinical negative cases. Meta-analysis showed that the sensitivity of CD64 to detect bacterial infections was significantly higher than that of C- The difference was statistically significant (P <0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two in the diagnosis of bacterial infection (P> 0.05). Conclusions In the diagnosis of bacterial infection, CD64 is more sensitive than C-reactive protein, the specificity of the two diagnosis of bacterial infection is quite similar, no significant difference.