论文部分内容阅读
目的 对比喷洒法与口服法煌蓝色素胃镜检查诊断胃癌的价值及提高活检阳性率的作用 ,研究两法诊断胃癌有无差别。方法 采用大样本完全随机化分组 ,煌蓝喷洒法与口服法均分别设对照组 ,染色后观察结果并取病理 ,记录病理结果。结果 煌蓝喷洒法对胃癌的诊断效果明显优于对照组 ,灵敏度Se为 0 97,特异度Sp为 0 97,正确指数YI为 0 94,高于其对照组 ,活检阳性率 98 5 3% ,高于对照组 5 7 6 3% ,二者差异显著 (P <0 .0 0 5 )。口服法对胃癌的诊断效果明显优于对照组 ,Se为 0 94,Sp为 0 99,YI为 0 93,高于其对照组 ,活检阳性率 93 44 % ,高于对照组 5 8.6 2 % ,二者差异显著 (P <0 .0 0 5 )。结论 喷洒法简单、快速、方便 ,诊断效果与口服法相近。
Objective To compare the value of spraying and oral blue light blue endoscopy in diagnosing gastric cancer and increasing the positive rate of biopsy. Methods A large sample of completely randomized groups was used. The blue spray method and the oral administration method were set in the control group. The staining results were taken after the staining and the pathology was recorded. The pathological results were recorded. RESULTS: The diagnostic effect of brilliant blue spray on gastric cancer was significantly better than that of the control group. The sensitivity Se was 0 97, the specificity Sp was 0 97, and the correct index YI was 0 94, which was higher than that of the control group. The positive rate of biopsy was 98 5 3%. The difference between the two groups was significant (P < 0.05). The diagnostic effect of oral administration on gastric cancer was significantly better than that of the control group. Se was 0 94, Sp was 0 99, YI was 0 93, which was higher than the control group. The positive rate of biopsy was 93 44%, which was higher than that of the control group, which was 5 8.6 2%. The difference was significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion Spraying method is simple, rapid and convenient. The diagnostic effect is similar to that of oral administration.