Zhonghua nei ke za zhi · 2004
[The clinical study of water loading in gastric sensation thresholds testing].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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 Qi-xiang, Zhu Liang-ru, Hou Xiao-hua
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To establish a simple, noninvasive, physiologic diagnostic assay for evaluating gastric sensation thresholds.
METHODS: The gastric perception and discomfort thresholds were monitored in 15 healthy controls and 30 functional dyspepsia patients by water load test and gastric barostat. Based on barostat the sensitivity, specificity, Kappa value, coincidence rate of water load test were evaluated and the correlation between those two methods was assessed.
RESULTS: Compared with gastric barostat, the sensitivity, specificity, Kappa value and coincidence rate of water load test for evaluating perception thresholds were reached 85.7%, 93.5%, 0.82, and 91.1%. These of water load test for evaluating discomfort thresholds were reached 81.8%, 91.2%, 0.79, and 88.9% compared with gastric barostat. The results were showed a good correlation between water load test and gastric barostat (P < 0.01, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: It had higher specificity, Kappa value and coincidence rate of water load test for evaluating the sensation threshold compared with gastric barostat. It can be applied effectively in clinical diagnosis for evaluating the sensory threshold.
METHODS: The gastric perception and discomfort thresholds were monitored in 15 healthy controls and 30 functional dyspepsia patients by water load test and gastric barostat. Based on barostat the sensitivity, specificity, Kappa value, coincidence rate of water load test were evaluated and the correlation between those two methods was assessed.
RESULTS: Compared with gastric barostat, the sensitivity, specificity, Kappa value and coincidence rate of water load test for evaluating perception thresholds were reached 85.7%, 93.5%, 0.82, and 91.1%. These of water load test for evaluating discomfort thresholds were reached 81.8%, 91.2%, 0.79, and 88.9% compared with gastric barostat. The results were showed a good correlation between water load test and gastric barostat (P < 0.01, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: It had higher specificity, Kappa value and coincidence rate of water load test for evaluating the sensation threshold compared with gastric barostat. It can be applied effectively in clinical diagnosis for evaluating the sensory threshold.