Oasys and occupational asthma banner logo

Systematic Review of diagnostic tests for occupational asthma

Systematic Review of diagnostic tests for occupational asthma
This systematic review supports the BOHRF evidence based review using inverse variance methods for random effects to calculate pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Comparing results with specific challenge tests the results showed (mean and 95% CI)

Non-specific hyper-responsibeness sensitivity 79.3% (68-88) High MW
66.7% (58-74) Low MW
specificity 51.3% (35-67) High MW
63.9% (56-71) Low MW

Skin prick tests sensitivity 80.6% (70-88) High MW
72.9% (60-83) Low MW
specificity 59.6% (42-75) High MW
86.2% (77-92) Low MW

Specific IgE sensitivity 73.3% (64-81) High MW
31.2% (23-41) Low MW
specificity 79.0% (50-93) High MW
88.9% (77-92) Low MW

Skin prick test plus NSBR sensitivity 60.6% (21-90) High MW

specificity 82.5% (54-95) High MW

References

Full Text Available for A Systematic Review of the Diagnosis of Occupational Asthma Beach J, Russell K, Blitz S, Hooton N, Spooner C, Lemiere C, Tarlo SM, Rowe BH, A Systematic Review of the Diagnosis of Occupational Asthma, Chest, 2007;131:569-578,
Jeremy Beach, University of Alberta, an author of 'A Systematic Review of the Diagnosis of Occupational Asthma' Catherine Lemière, Hôpital de Sacré Coeur, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, an author of 'A Systematic Review of the Diagnosis of Occupational Asthma' Susan Tarlo, Toronto, an author of 'A Systematic Review of the Diagnosis of Occupational Asthma'

Comments

Please sign in or register to add your thoughts.


Oasys and occupational asthma smoke logo