3.8 Article

Comparison between Gibson-Cooke and Macroduct Methods in the Cystic Fibrosis Neonatal Screening Program and in Subjects Who Are Cystic Fibrosis Screen-Positive with an Inconclusive Diagnosis

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijns9030041

关键词

sweat test; Gibson-Cooke method; macroduct system-based method; CRMS/CFSPID; QNS; cystic fibrosis outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The sweat test is the gold standard for diagnosing CF, and this study compared the outcomes of CF screening using the Gibson-Cooke and Macroduct methods. The results showed substantial agreement between the two methods in sweat chloride values, except for the CFSPID group, where the result may depend on the method of sweat collection.
The sweat test (ST) is the current diagnostic gold standard for cystic fibrosis (CF). Many CF centres have switched from the Gibson-Cooke method to the Macroduct system-based method. We used these methods simultaneously to compare CF screening outcomes. STs using both methods were performed simultaneously between March and December 2022 at CF Centre in Florence. We included newborns who underwent newborn bloodspot screening (NBS), newborns undergoing transfusion immediately after birth, and children with CF screen-positive, inconclusive diagnosis (CFSPID). We assessed 72 subjects (median age 4.4 months; range 0-76.7): 30 (41.7%) NBS-positive, 18 (25.0%) newborns who underwent transfusion, and 24 (33.3%) children with CFSPID. No significant differences were found between valid sample numbers, by patient ages and groups (p = 0.10) and between chloride concentrations (p = 0.13), except for sweat chloride (SC) measured by the Gibson-Cooke and Macroduct methods in CFSPID group (29.0, IQR: 20.0-48.0 and 22.5, IQR: 15.5-30.8, respectively; p = 0.01). The Macroduct and Gibson-Cooke methods showed substantial agreement with the SC values, except for CFSPID, whose result may depend on the method of sweat collection. In case of invalid values with Macroduct, the test should be repeated with Gibson-Cooke method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据