Objective To evaluate diagnostic value of antifilaggrin autoantibodies (AFA) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods A systematic, comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed (1966 to 2010.8), The Cochrane Library (issue 8, 2010), EMbase (1974 to 2010.8), CBM (1978 to 2010.8), CNKI (1994 to 2010.8), VIP (1989 to 2010.8) and Chinese Medical Association of Digital Periodicals (1997 to 2010.8). The diagnosis studies on AFA versus the standards of American College of Rheumatology for RA were included. QUADAS items were used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Meta-disc software (version 1.4) was used to analyze data. Sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (–LR) and summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) were calculated to assess the diagnostic value of individual diagnostic tests. Results A total of 18 articles were included, involving 6 971 cases of subjects from 7 countries. Results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with the standards of American College of Rheumatology, pooled SEN, SPE, +LR, –LR, and SROC curve of AFA were 0.52 (0.50, 0.54), 0.93 (0.92, 0.94), 7.11 (5.35, 9.45), 0.53 (0.48, 0.60), 13.82 (9.93, 19.24), and 0.834 7, respectively. Conclusion IBT, ELISA detection of AFA are of high efficiency in the diagnosis of RA. However, the antigen from human breast skin is not conducive to clinical application.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the diagnostic value of capsule endoscopy and enteroscopy in small intestinal diseases.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect studies on the diagnosis of intestinal diseases by capsule endoscopy and enteroscopy from inception to August 31st, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed by using RevMan 5.3 and Meta-DiSc software.ResultsA total of 20 studies were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio for capsule endoscopy were 0.86 (95%CI 0.83 to 0.87), 0.81 (95%CI 0.78 to 0.84), 117.07 (95%CI 37.98 to 360.92), 7.20 (95%CI 2.81 to 18.45), 0.11 (95%CI 0.06 to 0.21), and those for enteroscopy were 0.89 (95%CI 0.87 to 0.90), 0.91 (95%CI 0.89 to 0.93), 196.99 (95%CI 72.63 to 534.26), 13.26 (95%CI 5.00 to 35.14), 0.12 (95%CI 0.07 to 0.21). The areas under the working characteristic curve (SROC) of capsule endoscopy and enteroscopy were 0.9692 and 0.9783, respectively.ConclusionsBoth capsule endoscopy and enteroscopy have high specificity and sensitivity in the diagnosis of small intestinal diseases, and enteroscopy has higher clinical value in the diagnosis of some small intestinal diseases than capsule endoscopy. Due to limited quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusions are required to be verified by more high-quality studies.