Zhonghua nan ke xue = National journal of andrology · 2018
[Value of prostaticexosomal protein contentsin the first- and mid-stream urine for the diagnosis of chronic prostatitis].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Kai-Qiang, Xu Song, Zhang Guo-Wei, Li Yi-Ze, Shao Yong, Shang Xue-Jun
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To detect the contents of prostaticexosomal protein (PSEP) in the first- and mid-stream urine and assess their clinical value in the diagnosis of chronic prostatitis (CP).
METHODS: This study included358 male outpatientsat Nanjing General Hospital from November 2017 to May 2018, 269 diagnosed with and the other 89 without CP. Wemeasured the contents of PSEP in the first- and mid-stream urine samples collected from the subjectsby ELISA anddetermined the sensitivity and specificity, and total coincidence rate ofthe PSEPcontents in the diagnosis of CP. Using the ROC curve, we compared the PSEP levels in the two different urine samples and the results of diagnosis of CPbetween the PSEP detection method and clinical diagnostic criteria.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was observed between the contents of PSEP in the first- and mid-stream urine samples (［3.82 ± 3.74］ vs ［3.77 ± 3.90］ ng/ml, P = 0.46). In the diagnosis of CP, the PSEP contents in the first- and mid-stream urine samples manifested a sensitivity of 81.41% vs 86.99%, a specificity of 89.89% vs 88.76%, and a total coincidence rate of 83.52% vs 87.43%.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the content of PSEP in the first-stream and that in the mid-stream urine can be used as auxiliarydiagnostic indicators of chronic prostatitis, bothwith high sensitivity and specificity.
METHODS: This study included358 male outpatientsat Nanjing General Hospital from November 2017 to May 2018, 269 diagnosed with and the other 89 without CP. Wemeasured the contents of PSEP in the first- and mid-stream urine samples collected from the subjectsby ELISA anddetermined the sensitivity and specificity, and total coincidence rate ofthe PSEPcontents in the diagnosis of CP. Using the ROC curve, we compared the PSEP levels in the two different urine samples and the results of diagnosis of CPbetween the PSEP detection method and clinical diagnostic criteria.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was observed between the contents of PSEP in the first- and mid-stream urine samples (［3.82 ± 3.74］ vs ［3.77 ± 3.90］ ng/ml, P = 0.46). In the diagnosis of CP, the PSEP contents in the first- and mid-stream urine samples manifested a sensitivity of 81.41% vs 86.99%, a specificity of 89.89% vs 88.76%, and a total coincidence rate of 83.52% vs 87.43%.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the content of PSEP in the first-stream and that in the mid-stream urine can be used as auxiliarydiagnostic indicators of chronic prostatitis, bothwith high sensitivity and specificity.