查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- Performance of Antinuclear Antibody and Anti-Extractable Nuclear Antigen Antibody Tests in the Diagnosis of Autoimmune Diseases
- 修訂版長谷川氏痴呆量表的效度研究
- 血清免疫檢驗醫學--臨床應用
- T-STAT評估18~24個月自閉症類嬰幼兒效度探究
- 克氏行為量表篩檢4歲以下自閉症類疾患兒童效度探究
- The Revised Hasegawa's Dementia Scale (HDS-R) as a Screening Tool for Delirium
- 「嬰幼兒綜合發展測驗」動作分測驗與「皮巴迪動作發展量表第二版」的診斷準確度
- Diagnostic Performance of Tests for Anti-cyclic Citrullinated Peptides and Rheumatoid Factor in Rheumatoid Arthritis
- Use of Serum Level of Immunoglobulin G4 in the Differential Diagnosis of Autoimmune Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Cancer
- Falls in Home-dwelling Patients with Stroke during the First Three Months after Hospital Discharge: Immediate Mechanisms and Predictors
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | Performance of Antinuclear Antibody and Anti-Extractable Nuclear Antigen Antibody Tests in the Diagnosis of Autoimmune Diseases=抗核抗體與可抽取核抗原之抗體用於診斷自體免疫疾病的表現 |
---|---|
作者 | 李荃; 郭昶甫; 何輝煌; 劉烈邦; 陳基益; 羅淑芬; 余光輝; | 書刊名 | 中華民國風濕病雜誌 |
卷期 | 27:1 2013.09[民102.09] |
頁次 | 頁17-23 |
分類號 | 415.695 |
關鍵詞 | 抗核抗體; 抗可抽取核抗原之抗體; 敏感度; 特異度; 自體免疫疾病; ANA; Anti-ENA antibodies; Sensitivity; Specificity; Autoimmune disease; |
語文 | 英文(English) |
中文摘要 | 分析抗核抗體與抗可抽取核抗原之抗體用於診斷自體免疫疾病的敏感度、特異度、陽性預 測值、陰性預測值、陽性概似比以及陰性概似比。方法:我們收集長庚醫院2010年12月至2011年 2月之間至風濕免疫科門診就診並接受anti-ENA及ANA抗體分析的400位病患,追蹤六個月以上之 病歷,做回顧性分析。結果:於400位病患中,189(47.3%)位歸類於自體免疫疾病組,另外211 (52.7%)位病患歸類於非自體免疫疾病組。ANA的切點若設在1:160,則用於自體免疫疾病的偵測 之敏感度為69%,特異度為82%,陽性預測值為77%,陽性概似比為3.72;Anti-ENA抗體於自體免 疫疾病的偵測之敏感度為59%,特異度為89%,陽性預測值為82%,陽性概似比為5.21。ANA的切 點若設在1:640則可獲得極佳的陽性預測值(91%)以及較好的陽性概似比(11.04)。於自體免疫 疾病組,有59位病患的ANA ≤1:80,而當中有高達32.2%的病患anti-ENA抗體呈陽性。結論:ANA 對於自體免疫疾病是個篩檢工具,不過若ANA的切點設在1:640則對於自體免疫疾病享有極佳的診 斷正確率。一般說來,ANA檢驗於診斷自體免疫疾病有較高的敏感度,若呈陰性則有助於排除診 斷;而anti-ENA抗體的檢驗則有較高的特異度,亦擁有較高的陽性預測值以及較高的陽性概似比, 可用於確定診斷自體免疫疾病之輔助。ANA與anti-ENA抗體的檢驗有互補的效果,若能共同偵測則 可提升診斷正確率。對於ANA陰性或弱陽性但臨床上懷疑有自體免疫疾病的個案,仍然建議要接著 檢驗anti-ENA抗體。 |
英文摘要 | This study aimed to investigate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of antinuclear antibody (ANA) and anti-extractable nuclear antigen antibody (anti-ENA) tests in the diagnosis of autoimmune diseases (AID). Materials and Methods: Patients who visited Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Rheumatology outpatient department and for whom both ANA and anti-ENA tests were performed from December 2010 to February 2011 were enrolled in this study. The clinical data of 400 subjects were recorded and analyzed. All study subjects were followed for at least 6 months. Results: Of the 400 subjects, 189 (47.3%) were classified as AID group; 211 (52.7%) were classified as the non-autoimmune disease (non-AID) group. In the diagnosis of AID, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and LR+ of the ANA test at titer of ≥1:160 were 69%, 82%, 77%, and 3.72, respectively; the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and LR+ of the anti-ENA test were 59%, 89%, 82%, and 5.21, respectively. The ANA test had excellent PPV (91%) and good LR+ (11.04) at the cutoff titer of ≥1:640. Among the 59 patients in the AID group with traditional normal cutoff ANA titer of ≤1:80, as many as 32.2% (19 out of 59) of the patients had positive anti-ENA antibodies. Conclusions: ANA is traditionally a screening tool for AID, however, a positive ANA test at a cutoff titer of 1:640 has good diagnostic accuracy for AIDs. However, due to the relatively higher sensitivity and higher negative predictive value for detecting AIDs, a negative ANA test is intended for diagnostic exclusion; due to a relatively higher positive likelihood ratio and a higher positive predictive value, a positive anti-ENA test is complementary to ANA and both are useful in detecting AIDs. The results of the ANA test and subsequent follow-up or concomitant anti-ENA testing are key pieces to making the clinical diagnosis. In cases presenting with clinical symptoms or signs of AIDs but with negative ANA results or a lower titer of ANA, further screening for associated anti-ENA antibodies is recommended. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。