Published in:
01-01-2010 | Letter to the Editor
Diagnostic property of cervical phosphorylated insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 in the prediction of preterm labor in symptomatic patients
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 1/2010
Login to get accessExcerpt
Insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 is a specific protein that is proposed for its clinical significance role as a predictor for preterm labor in symptomatic patients. Altinkaya et al. recently published their interesting observation in Arch Gynecol Obstet that detection of this specific protein by was a rapid and easily applicable test that highly predicted preterm delivery [1]. However, the diagnostic property of the test for this protein is still a questionable concern in laboratory medicine. The wide range of sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic property of cervical phosphorylated insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 in the prediction of preterm labor in symptomatic patients can be seen in the publications from different settings (Table 1). Here, the author performed a summative analysis on the available reported papers in the literature to find the overall sensitivity and specificity for cervical phosphorylated insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 in the prediction of preterm labor in symptomatic patients. A total of nine papers focusing on this aspect derived from database (PubMed and Scopus) search were included. The other papers on this topic which lacked complete data on diagnostic property were excluded. Of overall 566 cases, the derived overall sensitivity and specificity are 66.7 and 86.2%, respectively. Considering on the derived diagnostic property, it cannot be said that the cervical phosphorylated insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 is not good laboratory investigation in the prediction of preterm labor in symptomatic patients.
Table 1
Relating reports on diagnostic property of cervical phosphorylated insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 in the prediction of preterm labor in symptomatic patients
|
Studies
|
Number
|
Sensitivity (%)
|
Specificity (%)
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Altinkaya et al. [1]
|
105
|
70.0
|
87.1
|
|
Lembet et al. [2]
|
36
|
89.5
|
94.1
|
|
Akercan et al. [3]
|
45
|
78.0
|
87.0
|
|
Elizur et al. [4]
|
64
|
72.7
|
83.0
|
|
Paternoster et al. [5]
|
109
|
69.2
|
90.5
|
|
Eroglu et al. [6]
|
51
|
58.3
|
92.3
|
|
Kwek et al. [7]
|
16
|
73.7
|
82.6
|
|
Kurkinen-Räty et al. [8]
|
77
|
73.0
|
61.0
|
|
Kekki et al. [9]
|
63
|
27.0
|
94.8
|