Angelo Zinellu, Panagiotis Paliogiannis, Arduino A Mangoni
{"title":"关于系统性红斑狼疮中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比率和血小板与淋巴细胞比率诊断准确性的系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Angelo Zinellu, Panagiotis Paliogiannis, Arduino A Mangoni","doi":"10.1007/s10238-024-01438-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The wide range of clinical and serological manifestations in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and the lack of accepted diagnostic criteria warrant the identification of novel, more accurate biomarkers. Hematological indices derived from full blood cell counts, particularly the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), have shown promise in SLE; however, a critical appraisal of their diagnostic accuracy is lacking. We sought to address this issue by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the NLR and PLR in SLE. The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to 15 March 2024 for studies reporting the sensitivity and specificity of the NLR and PLR, obtained by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, for the presence of SLE, disease severity, organ involvement (lupus nephritis, pericarditis, and pleural disease), and complications (infections). The risk of bias was assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024531446). The NLR exhibited good accuracy for the diagnosis of SLE (eight studies; area under the curve, AUC = 0.81, 95% CI 0.78-0.85) and lupus nephritis (nine studies; AUC = 0.81, 95% CI 0.77-0.84), but not for severe disease (nine studies; AUC = 0.69, 95% CI 0.65-0.73) or infections (six studies; AUC = 0.73, 95% CI 0.69-0.77). The PLR exhibited good accuracy for the diagnosis of severe disease (six studies; AUC = 0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.87). There were an insufficient number of studies to assess the accuracy of the PLR for the diagnosis of SLE, lupus nephritis, or infections. No study investigated the NLR and PLR in SLE patients with pericarditis or pleural disease. Therefore, the NLR and the PLR have a relatively high diagnostic accuracy for the presence of SLE and lupus nephritis (NLR) and severe disease (PLR). Further studies are warranted to determine whether the NLR and PLR, in combination with clinical evaluation and other serological biomarkers, can enhance the diagnosis and management of SLE.</p>","PeriodicalId":10337,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Medicine","volume":"24 1","pages":"170"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11272706/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in systemic lupus erythematosus.\",\"authors\":\"Angelo Zinellu, Panagiotis Paliogiannis, Arduino A Mangoni\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10238-024-01438-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The wide range of clinical and serological manifestations in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and the lack of accepted diagnostic criteria warrant the identification of novel, more accurate biomarkers. Hematological indices derived from full blood cell counts, particularly the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), have shown promise in SLE; however, a critical appraisal of their diagnostic accuracy is lacking. We sought to address this issue by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the NLR and PLR in SLE. The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to 15 March 2024 for studies reporting the sensitivity and specificity of the NLR and PLR, obtained by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, for the presence of SLE, disease severity, organ involvement (lupus nephritis, pericarditis, and pleural disease), and complications (infections). The risk of bias was assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024531446). The NLR exhibited good accuracy for the diagnosis of SLE (eight studies; area under the curve, AUC = 0.81, 95% CI 0.78-0.85) and lupus nephritis (nine studies; AUC = 0.81, 95% CI 0.77-0.84), but not for severe disease (nine studies; AUC = 0.69, 95% CI 0.65-0.73) or infections (six studies; AUC = 0.73, 95% CI 0.69-0.77). The PLR exhibited good accuracy for the diagnosis of severe disease (six studies; AUC = 0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.87). There were an insufficient number of studies to assess the accuracy of the PLR for the diagnosis of SLE, lupus nephritis, or infections. No study investigated the NLR and PLR in SLE patients with pericarditis or pleural disease. Therefore, the NLR and the PLR have a relatively high diagnostic accuracy for the presence of SLE and lupus nephritis (NLR) and severe disease (PLR). Further studies are warranted to determine whether the NLR and PLR, in combination with clinical evaluation and other serological biomarkers, can enhance the diagnosis and management of SLE.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Experimental Medicine\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"170\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11272706/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Experimental Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10238-024-01438-5\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10238-024-01438-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
系统性红斑狼疮(SLE)的临床和血清学表现多种多样,而且缺乏公认的诊断标准,因此需要找出新的、更准确的生物标志物。根据全血细胞计数得出的血液学指标,尤其是中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值(NLR)和血小板与淋巴细胞比值(PLR),在系统性红斑狼疮中显示出了良好的前景;然而,目前还缺乏对其诊断准确性的批判性评估。为了解决这一问题,我们对 NLR 和 PLR 在系统性红斑狼疮中的诊断准确性进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。从开始到2024年3月15日,我们在PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science等电子数据库中系统地检索了报告NLR和PLR灵敏度和特异性的研究,这些研究是通过接收器操作特征曲线(ROC)分析,得出系统性红斑狼疮、疾病严重程度、器官受累(狼疮性肾炎、心包炎和胸膜疾病)和并发症(感染)的灵敏度和特异性。采用JBI关键评估检查表(PROSPERO注册号:CRD42024531446)对偏倚风险进行了评估。NLR对系统性红斑狼疮(8项研究;曲线下面积,AUC = 0.81,95% CI 0.78-0.85)和狼疮肾炎(9项研究;AUC = 0.81,95% CI 0.77-0.84)的诊断具有良好的准确性,但对严重疾病(9项研究;AUC = 0.69,95% CI 0.65-0.73)或感染(6项研究;AUC = 0.73,95% CI 0.69-0.77)的诊断不准确。PLR 对严重疾病诊断的准确性很高(6 项研究;AUC = 0.85,95% CI 0.81-0.87)。没有足够的研究来评估 PLR 诊断系统性红斑狼疮、狼疮性肾炎或感染的准确性。没有研究对患有心包炎或胸膜疾病的系统性红斑狼疮患者的 NLR 和 PLR 进行调查。因此,NLR 和 PLR 对系统性红斑狼疮、狼疮肾炎(NLR)和严重疾病(PLR)的诊断准确性相对较高。我们有必要开展进一步研究,以确定 NLR 和 PLR 与临床评估和其他血清学生物标志物相结合,能否提高系统性红斑狼疮的诊断和管理水平。
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in systemic lupus erythematosus.
The wide range of clinical and serological manifestations in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and the lack of accepted diagnostic criteria warrant the identification of novel, more accurate biomarkers. Hematological indices derived from full blood cell counts, particularly the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), have shown promise in SLE; however, a critical appraisal of their diagnostic accuracy is lacking. We sought to address this issue by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the NLR and PLR in SLE. The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to 15 March 2024 for studies reporting the sensitivity and specificity of the NLR and PLR, obtained by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, for the presence of SLE, disease severity, organ involvement (lupus nephritis, pericarditis, and pleural disease), and complications (infections). The risk of bias was assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024531446). The NLR exhibited good accuracy for the diagnosis of SLE (eight studies; area under the curve, AUC = 0.81, 95% CI 0.78-0.85) and lupus nephritis (nine studies; AUC = 0.81, 95% CI 0.77-0.84), but not for severe disease (nine studies; AUC = 0.69, 95% CI 0.65-0.73) or infections (six studies; AUC = 0.73, 95% CI 0.69-0.77). The PLR exhibited good accuracy for the diagnosis of severe disease (six studies; AUC = 0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.87). There were an insufficient number of studies to assess the accuracy of the PLR for the diagnosis of SLE, lupus nephritis, or infections. No study investigated the NLR and PLR in SLE patients with pericarditis or pleural disease. Therefore, the NLR and the PLR have a relatively high diagnostic accuracy for the presence of SLE and lupus nephritis (NLR) and severe disease (PLR). Further studies are warranted to determine whether the NLR and PLR, in combination with clinical evaluation and other serological biomarkers, can enhance the diagnosis and management of SLE.
期刊介绍:
Clinical and Experimental Medicine (CEM) is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to be a forum of scientific excellence and information exchange in relation to the basic and clinical features of the following fields: hematology, onco-hematology, oncology, virology, immunology, and rheumatology. The journal publishes reviews and editorials, experimental and preclinical studies, translational research, prospectively designed clinical trials, and epidemiological studies. Papers containing new clinical or experimental data that are likely to contribute to changes in clinical practice or the way in which a disease is thought about will be given priority due to their immediate importance. Case reports will be accepted on an exceptional basis only, and their submission is discouraged. The major criteria for publication are clarity, scientific soundness, and advances in knowledge. In compliance with the overwhelmingly prevailing request by the international scientific community, and with respect for eco-compatibility issues, CEM is now published exclusively online.