The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2012
Clinical review: Current state and future perspectives in the diagnosis of diabetes insipidus: a clinical review.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАОбзорНазвание 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.
Fenske Wiebke, Allolio Bruno
Аннотация
CONTEXT: The differential diagnosis of diabetes insipidus (DI) is often challenging but essential, because treatment may vary substantially. This article analyzes the database and performance of currently used differential diagnostic tests for DI and discusses future perspectives for diagnostic improvement.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A review of electronic and print data comprising original and review articles retrieved from the PubMed or Cochrane Library database up to January 2012 was conducted. The search term "polyuria polydipsia syndrome" was cross-referenced with underlying forms of disease and associated clinical, diagnostic, and therapeutic MeSH terms. In addition, references from review articles and textbook chapters were screened for papers containing original data. Search results were narrowed to articles containing primary data with a description of criteria for the differential diagnosis of DI.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Fifteen articles on differential diagnosis of DI were identified, mainly consisting of small series of patients, and mostly covering only part of the differential diagnostic spectrum of DI. Test protocols differed, and prospective validation of diagnostic criteria was consistently missing. Inconsistent data were reported on the diagnostic superiority of direct plasma arginine vasopressin determination over the indirect water deprivation test. Both test methods revealed limitations, especially in the differentiation of disorders with a milder phenotype.
CONCLUSION: The available data demonstrate limitations of current biochemical tests for the differential diagnosis of DI, potentially leading to incorrect diagnosis and treatment. The newly available assay for copeptin, the C terminus of the vasopressin precursor, holds promise for a higher diagnostic specificity and simplification of the differential diagnostic protocol in DI.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A review of electronic and print data comprising original and review articles retrieved from the PubMed or Cochrane Library database up to January 2012 was conducted. The search term "polyuria polydipsia syndrome" was cross-referenced with underlying forms of disease and associated clinical, diagnostic, and therapeutic MeSH terms. In addition, references from review articles and textbook chapters were screened for papers containing original data. Search results were narrowed to articles containing primary data with a description of criteria for the differential diagnosis of DI.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Fifteen articles on differential diagnosis of DI were identified, mainly consisting of small series of patients, and mostly covering only part of the differential diagnostic spectrum of DI. Test protocols differed, and prospective validation of diagnostic criteria was consistently missing. Inconsistent data were reported on the diagnostic superiority of direct plasma arginine vasopressin determination over the indirect water deprivation test. Both test methods revealed limitations, especially in the differentiation of disorders with a milder phenotype.
CONCLUSION: The available data demonstrate limitations of current biochemical tests for the differential diagnosis of DI, potentially leading to incorrect diagnosis and treatment. The newly available assay for copeptin, the C terminus of the vasopressin precursor, holds promise for a higher diagnostic specificity and simplification of the differential diagnostic protocol in DI.