已发表论文

两种不同分子检测方法对核心针活检标本诊断结核性淋巴结炎准确性的比较:一项诊断准确性研究

 

Authors Yao L, Xu X, Chen G, Shen Y , Jiang W

Received 26 March 2022

Accepted for publication 13 May 2022

Published 27 May 2022 Volume 2022:15 Pages 5237—5246

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S367127

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser

Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the CapitalBio Mycobacterium real-time polymerase chain reaction assay (CapitalBio test) testing of core needle biopsy (CNB) specimens for tuberculous lymphadenitis (TBL) and to compare it with Xpert MTB/RIF.
Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical data on patients with suspected peripheral TBL. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) of the CapitalBio test, Xpert MTB/RIF, and parallel test (positive result for either of these two tests) were calculated to evaluate their diagnostic efficacy compared with the final clinical diagnosis.
Results: The study included 114 patients. For diagnosing TBL using CNB samples, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC were 65.0%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 28.6%, and 0.83, respectively, for the CapitalBio test; 72.0%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 33.3%, and 0.86, respectively, for Xpert MTB/RIF; and 82.0%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 43.8%, and 0.91, respectively, for the parallel test.
Conclusion: The accuracy of the CapitalBio test and Xpert MTB/RIF for diagnosing TBL using CNB specimens was moderate, while the sensitivity and NPV of these two tests were relatively low. The diagnostic accuracy of the CapitalBio test was slightly lower than that of Xpert MTB/RIF, but the difference between the two was not statistically significant. Parallel test might improve the diagnostic accuracy but not substantially over a single test.
Keywords: CapitalBio test, Xpert, tuberculous lymphadenitis, core needle biopsy, diagnostic accuracy