摘要
目的应用Meta分析比较中性粒细胞CD64与C-反应蛋白（C—reactiveprotein，CRP）在诊断细菌感染时灵敏度及特异度两方面的差异。方法检索PubMed、Embase和ScienceCitationIndexExpanded数据库，筛选从建库至2015年1月间同时评价中性粒细胞CD64及CRP诊断细菌感染能力的文献，对其进行质量评价，应用STATAl2．0软件，采用二分类变量Meta分析的方法进行分析。结果最终纳入9篇文献，其中1篇文献包含两组不同的研究人群，可以按照两个研究对待。第一组中性粒细胞CD64组总病例数l057例，第二组CRP组总病例数1063例。中性粒细胞CD64与CRP的灵敏度比较，效应值比值比（OR）=1．755，95％CI（1．041，2．958），P=0．035，效应值OR大于1，两者差异有统计学意义；中性粒细胞CD64与CRP的特异度比较，OR=0．620，95％C1（0．442，0．870），P=0．006，效应值OR小于1，两者差异有统计学意义。结论在诊断是否存在细菌感染方面，中性粒细胞CD64的灵敏度要高于CRP，而特异度低于CRP。
Objective To compare the sensitivity and specificity of neutrophfl CD64 and C-reactive protein（CRP） in the diagnosis of bacterial infection by Meta-analysis. Methods A computerized literature search of PubMed,Embase and Science Citation Index Expanded was conducted to retrieve studies related to evaluating the diagnosis value both of neutrophil CD64 and CRP in bacterial infectious diseases before January 2015. The methodological quality of each included study was assessed. The method of statistical analysis was dichotomous Meta- analysis using STATA 12. 0 software. Results Ultimately we included a total of l0 studies with 1 057 specimens in neutropbil CD64 group and 1 063 specimens in CRP group. Neutropbil CD64 compared with CRP in the sensitivity, OR = 1. 755,95 % CI（ 1. 041,2. 958 ）, P = 0. 035, while in the specifici- ty ,OR =0. 620,95% CI（O. 442,0. 870） ,P =0. 006. Conclusion In the diagnosis of bacterial infectious diseases, neutrophil CD64 is better than CRP in the sensitivity, but, CRP is better than neutrophil CD64 in the specificity.
出处
《中国小儿急救医学》
CAS
2015年第5期324-328,共5页
Chinese Pediatric Emergency Medicine
