한국임상수의학회지 (Journal of Veterinary Clinics)

  • 제26권2호
  • /
  • Pages.130-133
  • /
  • 2009
  • /
  • 1598-298X(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-0749(eISSN)
한국임상수의학회 (The Korean Society of Veterinary Clinics)
권호 표지

진단키트 검사결과에 대한 유병율 위주 해석: 개 심장사상충의 예

Prevalence-based Interpretation of Predictive Values of Diagnostic Tests: An Example for Detection of Canine Heartworm Infection

  • 박최규 (강원대학교 수의학부(대학) 및 동물의학연구소) ;
  • 박선일 (국립수의과학검역원)
  • Park, Choi-Kyu (School of Veterinary Medicine and Institute of Veterinary Science, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Pak, Son-Il (National Veterinary Research and Quarantine Service)
  • 발행 : 2009.04.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

검사키트의 신속성과 간편성이 보편화되면서 진단목적으로 키트를 사용하는 빈도가 증가하고 있다. 그러나 대부분의 검사키트는 민감도와 특이도가 100% 완벽하지 못하기 때문에 진단검사의 특성과 이러한 특성에 영향을 미치는 요인을 이해하지 못할 경우 검사결과를 해석하는데 오류를 범하게 된다. 임상의는 검사결과 양성 혹은 음성일 때 환자가 실제로 질병에 감염되어 있을 확률이 어느 정도인지에 관심을 두기 때문에 본 연구에서는 예측도를 이용하여 유병율에 따른 결과 해석방법을 개 심장사상충 진단키트를 예로 들어 설명하였다. 문헌고찰 결과 심장사상충 진단용 키트검사의 평균 민감도와 특이도는 DiroChek 78.1-95.2%, SNAP 66.3-98.1%, Solo Step 69.5-97.5%를 보였다. 혈액학적 검사법(Modified Knott's, direct smear, capillary tube)의 민감도와 특이도는 각각 38.4-81.8%, 96.9-100%의 범위를 보여 검사법에 따라 상당한 차이를 보였다. 또한 국내 개 심장상충의 자충과 항원 유병율은 지역별로 차이가 있으며 키트검사의 예측도는 유병율에 매우 민감하다는 점을 고려하면 개 심장사상충에 대한 검사결과에 근거하여 감염확률을 추정할 때 유병율이 상이한 임상환경에서는 양성 혹은 음성결과에 대하여 신중하게 해석할 필요가 있다.

The use of screening tests as part of a diagnostic work-up is common in domestic canine practice, but understanding of the diagnostic test characteristics and factors affecting diagnostic accuracy is not clear among clinicians. This article was aimed to provide clinicians with a better understanding on the selection of test kits and with a proper interpretation of test results using an example from heartworm(Dirofilaria immitis) studies. From the literatures, diagnostic accuracy varied depending on the kits: percent average sensitivity and specificity of ELISA antigen-detecting kits were DiroChek(Synbiotics, USA) 78.1 and 95.2, SNAP(IDEXX, USA) 66.3 and 98.1, and Solo Step(Heska, Switzerland) 69.5 and 97.5, respectively, while the values for three hematological methods(Modified Knott's, direct smear and capillary tube) ranged from 38.4 to 81.8% and from 96.9 to 100%, respectively. Furthermore, it was also reported that the prevalence of heartworm disease in domestic dog populations varied depending on the regions studied: 2.5-22.8% for microfilarial test and 2.2-66.3% by ELISA. The values of predictive values for positive(PPV) and negative(NPV) provide useful information to clinicians on the probability of heartworm infection, but the PPV and NPV are greatly dependent on the heartworm prevalence. This suggests that PPV or NPV values of a test should be interpreted carefully in different clinical settings. Practical methods on the interpretation taking into account heartworm prevalence were discussed.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Atkins CE. Comparison of results of three commercial heartworm antigen test kits in dogs with low heartworm burdens. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003; 222: 1221-1223 https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2003.222.1221
  2. Atwell RB, Sheridan AB, Baldock FC. An evaluation of the DiroCHEK test for detection of Dirofilaria immitis antigen in dogs. Aust Vet J 1988; 65: 161-162 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1988.tb14451.x
  3. Bedenice D. Evidence-based medicine in equine critical care. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2007; 23: 293-316 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cveq.2007.04.001
  4. Bland A, McTier T, Freeman KP et al. Evaluation of the ICTGOLD heartworm antigen test kit: In: Proceedings Heartworm Symposium, Batavia: Am Heartworm Soc 1995; 135-140
  5. Brunner CJ, Hendrix CM, Blagburn BL, Hanrahan LA. Comparison of serologic tests for detection of antigen in canine heartworm infections. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1988; 192: 1423-1427
  6. Chang PJ. Bayesian analysis revisited: a radiologist's survival guide. Am J Roentgenol 1988; 152: 721-727 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.152.4.721
  7. Christensen J, Gardner IA. Herd-level interpretation of test results for epidemiologic studies of animal diseases. Prev Vet Med 2000; 45: 83-106 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(00)00118-5
  8. Chu K. An introduction to sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios. Emerg Med 1999; 11: 175-181 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-2026.1999.00041.x
  9. Collins MT, Interpretation of a commercial bovine paratuberculosis enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay by using likelihood ratios, Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2002; 9: 1367–1371 https://doi.org/10.1128/CDLI.9.6.1367-1371.2002
  10. Courtney CH, Zeng QY, Tonelli Q. Sensitivity and specificity of the CITE heartworm test and a comparison with the DiroCHEK heartworm antigen test. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1990; 26: 623-628
  11. Courtney CH, Zeng Q-Y. Sensitivity and specificity of two heartworm antigen tests. Canine Pract 1995; 20: 15-17
  12. Courtney CH, Zeng QY. Comparison of heartworm antigen test kit performance in dogs having low heartworm burdens. Vet Parasitol 2001; 96: 317-322 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4017(01)00374-0
  13. Elstein AS, Schwartz A. Clinical problem solving and diagnostic decision making: selective review of the cognitive literature. BMJ 2002; 324: 729-732 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7339.729
  14. Fosgate GT, Adesiyun AA, Hird DW, Hietala SK. Likelihood ratio estimation without a gold standard: A case study evaluating a brucellosis c-ELISA in cattle and water buffalo of Trinidad. Prev Vet Med 2006; 75: 189–205 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2006.02.007
  15. Gardner IA, Greiner M. Receiver-operating characteristic curves and likelihood ratios: improvements over traditional methods for the evaluation and application of veterinary clinical pathology tests. Vet Clin Path 2006; 35: 8-17 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-165X.2006.tb00082.x
  16. Gardner IA, Blanchard PC. Interpretation of laboratory results. In: Disease of swine. 9th ed. Iowa: Blackwell Publishing, 2006; 219-239
  17. Giard RWM, Hermans J. The diagnostic information of tests for the detection of cancer: the usefulness of the likelihood ratio concept. Eur J Cancer 1996; 32A: 2042–2048 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-8049(96)00282-1
  18. Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper: papers that report diagnostic or screening tests. BMJ 1997; 315: 540-543 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7107.540
  19. Greiner M, Gardner IA. Application of diagnostic tests in veterinary epidemiologic studies. Prev Vet Med 2000; 45: 43-59 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(00)00116-1
  20. Guyatt G, Sackett D, Haynes R. Evaluating diagnostic tests. In: Clinical epidemiology: how to do clinical practice research. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006; 273-322
  21. Hoover JP, Campbell GA, Fox JC, Claypool PL, Mullins SB. Comparison of eight diagnostic bllod tests for heartworm infection in dogs. Canine Pract 1996; 21: 11-19
  22. Kim ET, Pak SI. Use of likelihood ratios in evidence-based clinical decision making. J Vet Clin 2008; 25: 146-151
  23. Martini M, Capelli G, Pogalyen G, Bertotti F, Turilli C. The validity of some haematological and ELISA methods for the diagnosis of canine heartworm disease. Vet Res Commun 1996; 20: 331-339 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00366539
  24. Peterson ME. Diagnosis of hyperadrenocorticism in dogs. Clin Tech Small Anim Pract 2007; 22: 2-11 https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ctsap.2007.02.007
  25. Sackett DL, Haynes RB. Evidence base of clinical diagnosis: the architecture of diagnostic research. BMJ 2002; 324: 539-541 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7336.539
  26. Schultz KS, Cook JL, Kapatkin AS, Brown DC. Evidencebased surgery: time for change. Vet Surg 2006; 35: 697-699 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950X.2006.00212.x
  27. Steurer J, Fischer JF, Bachmann LM, Koller M, ter Riet G. Communicating accuracy of tests to general practitioners: a controlled study. BMJ 2002; 324: 824-826 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7341.824
  28. Wang LC. Canine filarial infections in north Taiwan. Acta Trop 1997; 68: 115-120 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-706X(97)00081-8