鼻腔一氧化氮对诊断嗜酸性粒细胞性慢性鼻炎的预测价值:系统回顾与元分析

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy Pub Date : 2024-04-29 DOI:10.1177/19458924241251387
Do Hyun Kim, Hyesoo Shin, Gulnaz Stybayeva, Se Hwan Hwang
{"title":"鼻腔一氧化氮对诊断嗜酸性粒细胞性慢性鼻炎的预测价值:系统回顾与元分析","authors":"Do Hyun Kim, Hyesoo Shin, Gulnaz Stybayeva, Se Hwan Hwang","doi":"10.1177/19458924241251387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectivesThe primary aim of this study was to assess disparities in nasal nitric oxide (NO) levels between individuals diagnosed with eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis (ECRS) and those without ECRS. The second aim was to ascertain the comparative predictive efficacy of these nasal NO levels for the presence of ECRS.MethodsA systematic analysis was conducted on relevant studies that compared nasal NO levels in individuals with ECRS and those without. Furthermore, the discriminatory capacity of nasal NO in distinguishing ECRS from non-ECRS cohorts was quantified. The risk of bias across studies was evaluated utilizing the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.ResultsThe comprehensive review encompassed a total of 5 studies involving 470 participants. Findings revealed that patients diagnosed with ECRS exhibited significantly higher levels of nasal NO, as measured in parts per billion (ppb), compared to their non-ECRS patients. The mean difference was 130.03 ppb (95% confidence interval: [66.30, 193.75], I2 = 58.7%). The diagnostic odds ratio for nasal NO in identifying ECRS was 9.29 ([5.85, 14.75], I2 = 26.4%). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.82. The correlation between sensitivity and false positive rate was 0.53, suggesting a lack of heterogeneity. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were 69% ([0.55, 0.79], I2<jats:sup> </jats:sup>= 77.0%), 83% ([0.73, 0.90], I<jats:sup> 2 </jats:sup> = 68.5%), 77% ([0.69, 0.83], I<jats:sup> 2 </jats:sup><jats:sup> </jats:sup>= 50.1%), and 75% ([0.67, 0.82], I<jats:sup> 2 </jats:sup><jats:sup> </jats:sup>= 41.5%), respectively.ConclusionNasal NO has the potential as a noninvasive diagnostic measure and endotype tool for ECRS.","PeriodicalId":7650,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predictive Value of Nasal Nitric Oxide for Diagnosing Eosinophilic Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Do Hyun Kim, Hyesoo Shin, Gulnaz Stybayeva, Se Hwan Hwang\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19458924241251387\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ObjectivesThe primary aim of this study was to assess disparities in nasal nitric oxide (NO) levels between individuals diagnosed with eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis (ECRS) and those without ECRS. The second aim was to ascertain the comparative predictive efficacy of these nasal NO levels for the presence of ECRS.MethodsA systematic analysis was conducted on relevant studies that compared nasal NO levels in individuals with ECRS and those without. Furthermore, the discriminatory capacity of nasal NO in distinguishing ECRS from non-ECRS cohorts was quantified. The risk of bias across studies was evaluated utilizing the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.ResultsThe comprehensive review encompassed a total of 5 studies involving 470 participants. Findings revealed that patients diagnosed with ECRS exhibited significantly higher levels of nasal NO, as measured in parts per billion (ppb), compared to their non-ECRS patients. The mean difference was 130.03 ppb (95% confidence interval: [66.30, 193.75], I2 = 58.7%). The diagnostic odds ratio for nasal NO in identifying ECRS was 9.29 ([5.85, 14.75], I2 = 26.4%). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.82. The correlation between sensitivity and false positive rate was 0.53, suggesting a lack of heterogeneity. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were 69% ([0.55, 0.79], I2<jats:sup> </jats:sup>= 77.0%), 83% ([0.73, 0.90], I<jats:sup> 2 </jats:sup> = 68.5%), 77% ([0.69, 0.83], I<jats:sup> 2 </jats:sup><jats:sup> </jats:sup>= 50.1%), and 75% ([0.67, 0.82], I<jats:sup> 2 </jats:sup><jats:sup> </jats:sup>= 41.5%), respectively.ConclusionNasal NO has the potential as a noninvasive diagnostic measure and endotype tool for ECRS.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7650,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19458924241251387\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19458924241251387","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的主要目的是评估被诊断为嗜酸性粒细胞慢性鼻炎(ECRS)患者和非ECRS患者之间鼻腔一氧化氮(NO)水平的差异。方法对比较 ECRS 患者和非 ECRS 患者鼻腔一氧化氮水平的相关研究进行了系统分析。此外,还量化了鼻腔 NO 在区分 ECRS 和非 ECRS 群体方面的鉴别能力。采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表对各项研究的偏倚风险进行了评估。研究结果显示,与非 ECRS 患者相比,确诊为 ECRS 的患者鼻腔 NO 水平(以十亿分之一(ppb)为单位)明显更高。平均差异为 130.03 ppb(95% 置信区间:[66.30, 193.75],I2 = 58.7%)。鼻腔 NO 识别 ECRS 的诊断几率比为 9.29([5.85, 14.75],I2 = 26.4%)。接收者操作特征曲线下面积为 0.82。灵敏度与假阳性率之间的相关性为 0.53,表明缺乏异质性。灵敏度、特异性、阴性预测值和阳性预测值分别为 69%([0.55, 0.79],I2 = 77.0%)、83%([0.73, 0.90],I 2 = 68.5%)、77%([0.69, 0.83],I 2 = 50.1%)和 75%([0.67, 0.82],I 2 = 41.5%)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Predictive Value of Nasal Nitric Oxide for Diagnosing Eosinophilic Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
ObjectivesThe primary aim of this study was to assess disparities in nasal nitric oxide (NO) levels between individuals diagnosed with eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis (ECRS) and those without ECRS. The second aim was to ascertain the comparative predictive efficacy of these nasal NO levels for the presence of ECRS.MethodsA systematic analysis was conducted on relevant studies that compared nasal NO levels in individuals with ECRS and those without. Furthermore, the discriminatory capacity of nasal NO in distinguishing ECRS from non-ECRS cohorts was quantified. The risk of bias across studies was evaluated utilizing the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.ResultsThe comprehensive review encompassed a total of 5 studies involving 470 participants. Findings revealed that patients diagnosed with ECRS exhibited significantly higher levels of nasal NO, as measured in parts per billion (ppb), compared to their non-ECRS patients. The mean difference was 130.03 ppb (95% confidence interval: [66.30, 193.75], I2 = 58.7%). The diagnostic odds ratio for nasal NO in identifying ECRS was 9.29 ([5.85, 14.75], I2 = 26.4%). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.82. The correlation between sensitivity and false positive rate was 0.53, suggesting a lack of heterogeneity. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were 69% ([0.55, 0.79], I2 = 77.0%), 83% ([0.73, 0.90], I 2 = 68.5%), 77% ([0.69, 0.83], I 2 = 50.1%), and 75% ([0.67, 0.82], I 2 = 41.5%), respectively.ConclusionNasal NO has the potential as a noninvasive diagnostic measure and endotype tool for ECRS.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
11.50%
发文量
82
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy is a peer-reviewed, scientific publication committed to expanding knowledge and publishing the best clinical and basic research within the fields of Rhinology & Allergy. Its focus is to publish information which contributes to improved quality of care for patients with nasal and sinus disorders. Its primary readership consists of otolaryngologists, allergists, and plastic surgeons. Published material includes peer-reviewed original research, clinical trials, and review articles.
期刊最新文献
Doing the Rhinologic Work, From Humans to Mice to Robots. Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress Promotes Telomerase Reverse Transcriptase Expression Contributes to Development of Allergic Rhinitis. Malvidin From Malva sylvestris L. Ameliorates Allergic Responses in Ovalbumin-Induced Allergic Rhinitis Mouse Model via the STAT6/GATA3 Pathway. Comparative Effectiveness of Dupilumab Versus Sinus Surgery for Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Polyps: Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis. The Evaluation Value of the Modified Lund-Kennedy Nasal Endoscopy Score on the Efficacy of Sublingual Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1