中国性科学
中國性科學
중국성과학
THE CHINESE JOURNAL OF HUMAN SEXUALITY
2014年
10期
49-51
,共3页
酶联免疫吸附试验%梅毒螺旋体明胶颗粒凝集试验%梅毒螺旋体血球凝集试验
酶聯免疫吸附試驗%梅毒螺鏇體明膠顆粒凝集試驗%梅毒螺鏇體血毬凝集試驗
매련면역흡부시험%매독라선체명효과립응집시험%매독라선체혈구응집시험
Enzyme -linked immunosorbent assay%Treponema palladium particle agglutination test%Treponema palladium hemagglutination test
目的:分析不同检验方法对梅毒不同时期的敏感性和特异性。方法:选取我院2008年3月至2013年3月健康体检发现的梅毒患者80名设为观察组,以及随机抽取同期健康体检结果显示正常的80名志愿者设为对照组。分别用酶联免疫吸附试验、梅毒螺旋体明胶颗粒凝集试验、梅毒螺旋体血球凝集试验进行检测,对比3种方法的敏感性和特异性。结果:从敏感性上来看,梅毒螺旋体血球凝集试验要明显小于梅毒螺旋体明胶颗粒凝集试验与酶联免疫吸附试验,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05),其中酶联免疫吸附试验要高于梅毒螺旋体明胶颗粒凝集试验,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);从特异性来看,3种检测方法均无统计学差异(P>0.05),其中梅毒螺旋体明胶颗粒凝集试验的特异性最高。结论:梅毒螺旋体血球凝集试验的敏感性较低,不推荐广泛使用。梅毒螺旋体明胶颗粒凝集试验与酶联免疫吸附试验的敏感性与特异性较高。其中酶联免疫吸附试验操作简便,易于标准化与自动化操作,可以用于批量检测,值得临床广泛推广。
目的:分析不同檢驗方法對梅毒不同時期的敏感性和特異性。方法:選取我院2008年3月至2013年3月健康體檢髮現的梅毒患者80名設為觀察組,以及隨機抽取同期健康體檢結果顯示正常的80名誌願者設為對照組。分彆用酶聯免疫吸附試驗、梅毒螺鏇體明膠顆粒凝集試驗、梅毒螺鏇體血毬凝集試驗進行檢測,對比3種方法的敏感性和特異性。結果:從敏感性上來看,梅毒螺鏇體血毬凝集試驗要明顯小于梅毒螺鏇體明膠顆粒凝集試驗與酶聯免疫吸附試驗,差異具有統計學意義(P<0.05),其中酶聯免疫吸附試驗要高于梅毒螺鏇體明膠顆粒凝集試驗,差異無統計學意義(P>0.05);從特異性來看,3種檢測方法均無統計學差異(P>0.05),其中梅毒螺鏇體明膠顆粒凝集試驗的特異性最高。結論:梅毒螺鏇體血毬凝集試驗的敏感性較低,不推薦廣汎使用。梅毒螺鏇體明膠顆粒凝集試驗與酶聯免疫吸附試驗的敏感性與特異性較高。其中酶聯免疫吸附試驗操作簡便,易于標準化與自動化操作,可以用于批量檢測,值得臨床廣汎推廣。
목적:분석불동검험방법대매독불동시기적민감성화특이성。방법:선취아원2008년3월지2013년3월건강체검발현적매독환자80명설위관찰조,이급수궤추취동기건강체검결과현시정상적80명지원자설위대조조。분별용매련면역흡부시험、매독라선체명효과립응집시험、매독라선체혈구응집시험진행검측,대비3충방법적민감성화특이성。결과:종민감성상래간,매독라선체혈구응집시험요명현소우매독라선체명효과립응집시험여매련면역흡부시험,차이구유통계학의의(P<0.05),기중매련면역흡부시험요고우매독라선체명효과립응집시험,차이무통계학의의(P>0.05);종특이성래간,3충검측방법균무통계학차이(P>0.05),기중매독라선체명효과립응집시험적특이성최고。결론:매독라선체혈구응집시험적민감성교저,불추천엄범사용。매독라선체명효과립응집시험여매련면역흡부시험적민감성여특이성교고。기중매련면역흡부시험조작간편,역우표준화여자동화조작,가이용우비량검측,치득림상엄범추엄。
Objectives:To analyze the sensitivity and specificity of different testing method on syphilis in dif-ferent periods.Methods:80 syphilis patients in our hospital from March 2008 to March 2013 and 80 randomly selected healthy volunteers were selected as study objects.Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA),gelatin Treponema pallidum particle agglutination test and Treponema pallidum hemagglutination test are used for testing,to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the three methods.Results:In terms of sensitivity,Treponema palladium hemagglutination test was significantly less than the Treponema palladium particle agglutination test and ELISA,with statistically significant difference (P<0.05),and the sensitivity of ELISA was higher than Treponema palladium hemagglutination,the differ-ence being not statistically significant (P>0.05);in terms of specificity,the three detection methods were not statistical-ly different (P >0.05 ),of which Treponema palladium particle agglutination test had the highest specificity. Conclusions:The sensitivity of Treponema palladium hemagglutination test is low,not worthy of popularization.Trepone-ma palladium particle agglutination test and ELISA are of high sensitivity and specificity.ELISA test,which is simple and easy to realize standardization and automation,can be used for batch testing,worthy of wider promotion.