中国医药
中國醫藥
중국의약
CHINA MEDICINE
2010年
7期
654-655
,共2页
假丝酵母菌病%外阴阴道%检验%染色
假絲酵母菌病%外陰陰道%檢驗%染色
가사효모균병%외음음도%검험%염색
Candidiasis,vulvovaginal%Clinical laboratory%Stain
目的 比较外阴阴道假丝酵母菌病(VVC)的检验方法的差异.方法 采用生理盐水法、10%KOH法、革兰染色法和真菌培养法分别检测308份阴道分泌物,并对结果进行比较.结果 10%KOH法阳性187例(60.71%),阴性121例;生理盐水法阳性180例(58.63%),阴性128例;革兰染色法阳性198例(64.29%),阳性110例;真菌培养法阳性207例(67.21%),阴性101例.生理盐水法与10%KOH法、革兰染色法相比,阳性率差异有统计学意义;但与真菌培养法相比,阳性率差异没有统计学意义.10%KOH法与革兰染色法阳性率差异有统计学意义,但与真菌培养法相比,差异无统计学意义.革兰染色法与真菌培养法的阳性率差异亦无统计学意义.生理盐水法敏感度58.44%,10%KOH法敏感度60.71%,革兰染色法敏感度64.29%,3种方法的特异度均为100%.结论 生理盐水法与真菌培养法检验结果差异有统计学意义,10%KOH法、革兰染色法与真菌培养法检验结果差异无统计学意义.生理盐水法、10%KOH法、革兰染色法诊断敏感度依次升高.
目的 比較外陰陰道假絲酵母菌病(VVC)的檢驗方法的差異.方法 採用生理鹽水法、10%KOH法、革蘭染色法和真菌培養法分彆檢測308份陰道分泌物,併對結果進行比較.結果 10%KOH法暘性187例(60.71%),陰性121例;生理鹽水法暘性180例(58.63%),陰性128例;革蘭染色法暘性198例(64.29%),暘性110例;真菌培養法暘性207例(67.21%),陰性101例.生理鹽水法與10%KOH法、革蘭染色法相比,暘性率差異有統計學意義;但與真菌培養法相比,暘性率差異沒有統計學意義.10%KOH法與革蘭染色法暘性率差異有統計學意義,但與真菌培養法相比,差異無統計學意義.革蘭染色法與真菌培養法的暘性率差異亦無統計學意義.生理鹽水法敏感度58.44%,10%KOH法敏感度60.71%,革蘭染色法敏感度64.29%,3種方法的特異度均為100%.結論 生理鹽水法與真菌培養法檢驗結果差異有統計學意義,10%KOH法、革蘭染色法與真菌培養法檢驗結果差異無統計學意義.生理鹽水法、10%KOH法、革蘭染色法診斷敏感度依次升高.
목적 비교외음음도가사효모균병(VVC)적검험방법적차이.방법 채용생리염수법、10%KOH법、혁란염색법화진균배양법분별검측308빈음도분비물,병대결과진행비교.결과 10%KOH법양성187례(60.71%),음성121례;생리염수법양성180례(58.63%),음성128례;혁란염색법양성198례(64.29%),양성110례;진균배양법양성207례(67.21%),음성101례.생리염수법여10%KOH법、혁란염색법상비,양성솔차이유통계학의의;단여진균배양법상비,양성솔차이몰유통계학의의.10%KOH법여혁란염색법양성솔차이유통계학의의,단여진균배양법상비,차이무통계학의의.혁란염색법여진균배양법적양성솔차이역무통계학의의.생리염수법민감도58.44%,10%KOH법민감도60.71%,혁란염색법민감도64.29%,3충방법적특이도균위100%.결론 생리염수법여진균배양법검험결과차이유통계학의의,10%KOH법、혁란염색법여진균배양법검험결과차이무통계학의의.생리염수법、10%KOH법、혁란염색법진단민감도의차승고.
Objective To compare the differences of four laboratory methods of vulvovaginal candidiasis detection. Methods Three hundred and eight vagina secretions were tested by wet-mount and KOH preparations and Gram's stain and culture. Results There was a significant difference among wet-mount with KOH preparations and Gram's stain and culture. There was a significant difference between KOH preparations with Gram's stain. The test results of wet-mount and culture had statistical difference, but the result of KOH preparations and culture did not show statistical significance. The result between Gram's stain and culture did not show statistical significance.Conclusion The sensitivity of microscopic examination by wet-mount is higher than that of KOH test and Gram's stain.
