Objective To assess the quality of diagnostic studies on detecting the tuberculosis antibody to diagnose tuberculosis.Methods CBM (1978 to 2006) and VIP (1994 to 2006) were searched; any author-claimed diagnostic studies which used the dot immunogold filtration assay (DIGFA) to detect the tuberculosis antibody and to diagnose tuberculosis were included. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) was used to assess the quality of included diagnostic studies by two reviewers independently.Results Thirty-eight papers were included and assessed. We found that most of the quality items were not met with QUADAS. Most papers adopted the retrospective diagnostic case-control design. Thirty-one papers did not describe the selection criteria clearly, 18 did not describe whether all the included patients were verified by using a reference standard of diagnosis, 36 did not describe whether the index test results were interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard, 37 did not report the uninterpretable/intermediate test results, and 34 did not report the withdrawals from the study.Conclusion There are few high quality studies on using DIGFA to detect tuberculosis antibody to diagnose tuberculosis.
ObjectiveTo analyze the surgical effect, postoperative complications and effects on the body inflammatory response of laparoscopic gastroduodenal perforation repair, and to further evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic perforation repair. MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 123 patients with gastroduodenal ulcer perforation treated between February 2010 and February 2015. Among the patients, 65 underwent laparoscopic gastroduodenal ulcer perforation repair (laparoscopic group), and 58 underwent routine open gastroduodenal ulcer perforation repair (open group). Then, we compared the surgical effects (average bleeding volume, ambulation time, postoperative ventilation time, postoperative hospital stay), postoperative complications (wound infection, wound dehiscence, gastroduodenal fistula, abdominal abscess, intestinal obstruction), inflammatory reaction[preoperative and 1, 3, 5-day postoperative white blood cells (WBC) count, peripheral blood procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP)] between the two groups. ResultsPatients in both the two groups underwent the surgery successfully. No patients in the laparoscopic group were transferred to open surgery. Compared with the open surgery, surgical bleeding volume, ambulation time, anal exhaust time and postoperative hospital stay of the laparoscopic group were significantly different (P < 0.05). Postoperative complications rate of the laparoscopic group was significantly lower than that of the open group (P < 0.05). One and 3-day WBC, PCT and CRP after surgery increased obviously in both the two groups. The above three indicators on the fifth day after surgery were not significantly different from those before the surgery in the laparoscopic group (P > 0.05), while they were significantly different from those before the surgery in the open group (P < 0.05). ConclusionsCompared with open perforation repair, laparoscopic perforation repair surgery is superior for its better surgical effects, fewer postoperative complications and lighter inflammatory response. It is a safe, effective and minimally-invasive treatment for gastroduodenal perforation.