论文部分内容阅读
目的评价果糖胺检测在糖尿病诊断中的临床价值。方法检索PubMed、EMbase、Ovid、CNKI、万方数据库,系统评价果糖胺检测对糖尿病的诊断价值。采用RevMan 5.2和Meta-Disc 1.4软件行综合定量评价,Stata 11.0软件评价发表偏倚。结果最终纳入19篇文献。Meta分析结果显示,合并敏感性0.76(95%CI:0.74~0.78),合并特异性0.89(95%CI:0.88~0.90),阳性似然比8.47(95%CI:5.47~13.12),阴性似然比0.24(95%CI:0.19~0.30),合并诊断比值比41.05(95%CI:23.37~72.10),异质性的差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线下面积(AUC)为0.9205,Q*指数为0.8540;Begg(P=0.484)和Egger检验(P=0.155)均提示不存在发表偏倚。结论果糖胺检测对糖尿病诊断有一定参考价值。
Objective To evaluate the clinical value of fructosamine test in the diagnosis of diabetes. Methods The PubMed, EMbase, Ovid, CNKI and Wanfang databases were searched and the diagnostic value of fructosamine test for diabetes was systematically evaluated. Using the RevMan 5.2 and Meta-Disc 1.4 software comprehensive quantitative evaluation, Stata 11.0 software evaluation publication bias. The results eventually included 19 articles. Meta-analysis showed that the combined sensitivity was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.74-0.78), and the combined specificity was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.88-0.90). The positive likelihood ratio was 8.47 (95% CI: 5.47-13.12) (P <0.01). However, there was a significant difference in the heterogeneity between the two groups (P <0.01), while the odds ratio (ROC) was 0.24 (95% CI: 0.19-0.30) and the pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 41.05 (95% CI: 23.37-72.10) ) The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.9205 and the Q * index was 0.8540. Both Begg (P = 0.484) and Egger test (P = 0.155) suggested the absence of publication bias. Conclusion Fructosamine test for the diagnosis of diabetes have some reference value.