实用医技杂志
實用醫技雜誌
실용의기잡지
JOURNAL OF PRACTICAL MEDICAL TECHNIQUES
2015年
2期
122-123
,共2页
化学发光免疫法%放射免疫法%促甲状腺激素受体抗体
化學髮光免疫法%放射免疫法%促甲狀腺激素受體抗體
화학발광면역법%방사면역법%촉갑상선격소수체항체
Chemiluminescent immunoassay%Radioimmunoassay%Thyrotropin receptor antibody
目的：比较化学发光免疫法（CLIA）与放射免疫法（RIA）2种方法测定血清促甲状腺激素受体抗体（TRAb）水平的差异性，探讨CLIA检测TRAb的临床可行性。方法收集60例临床受检血清样本，并根据临床检查结果分为Graves病组和健康对照组，采用CLIA和RIA同时检测2组的血清TRAb水平。结果采用2种检测方法测定的Graves病组的TRAb水平均高于健康对照组（P<0.05）。2种检测方法测定的TRAb水平具有高度的相关性（r=0.990，P<0.01）。2种检测方法的阳性符合率为97.0%，阴性符合率为94.4%，总体符合率为96.1%。2种检测方法的阳性率的差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论在血清TRAb水平的检测上，CLIA与RIA没有明显的差异性，同时CLIA具有灵敏度高、特异性强、自动化高，速度快、无放射性等优点，便于临床应用。
目的：比較化學髮光免疫法（CLIA）與放射免疫法（RIA）2種方法測定血清促甲狀腺激素受體抗體（TRAb）水平的差異性，探討CLIA檢測TRAb的臨床可行性。方法收集60例臨床受檢血清樣本，併根據臨床檢查結果分為Graves病組和健康對照組，採用CLIA和RIA同時檢測2組的血清TRAb水平。結果採用2種檢測方法測定的Graves病組的TRAb水平均高于健康對照組（P<0.05）。2種檢測方法測定的TRAb水平具有高度的相關性（r=0.990，P<0.01）。2種檢測方法的暘性符閤率為97.0%，陰性符閤率為94.4%，總體符閤率為96.1%。2種檢測方法的暘性率的差異無統計學意義（P>0.05）。結論在血清TRAb水平的檢測上，CLIA與RIA沒有明顯的差異性，同時CLIA具有靈敏度高、特異性彊、自動化高，速度快、無放射性等優點，便于臨床應用。
목적：비교화학발광면역법（CLIA）여방사면역법（RIA）2충방법측정혈청촉갑상선격소수체항체（TRAb）수평적차이성，탐토CLIA검측TRAb적림상가행성。방법수집60례림상수검혈청양본，병근거림상검사결과분위Graves병조화건강대조조，채용CLIA화RIA동시검측2조적혈청TRAb수평。결과채용2충검측방법측정적Graves병조적TRAb수평균고우건강대조조（P<0.05）。2충검측방법측정적TRAb수평구유고도적상관성（r=0.990，P<0.01）。2충검측방법적양성부합솔위97.0%，음성부합솔위94.4%，총체부합솔위96.1%。2충검측방법적양성솔적차이무통계학의의（P>0.05）。결론재혈청TRAb수평적검측상，CLIA여RIA몰유명현적차이성，동시CLIA구유령민도고、특이성강、자동화고，속도쾌、무방사성등우점，편우림상응용。
Objective To investigate the difference between chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) and radio-immunoassay(RIA) for detection of serum Thyrotropin receptor antibody(TRAb), and the clinical feasibility of detecting serum TRAb using CLIA. Methods All 60 patients were classified into Graves′ Disease and healthy control groups according to the clinical examination, and serum TRAb of which were detected using both CLIA and RIA. Results Serum TRAb of Graves′ disease group was higher than that of health control group using both CLIA and RIA (P<0.05). The levels of serum TRAb detected by CLIA and RIA are highly correlated (r=0.990, P<0.01). The positive coincidence rate, negative coincidence rate, and overall coincidence rate for testing serum TRAb by CLIA and RIA were 97.0%, 94.4%, and 96.1%respectively, and the positive rates had no statistically significance between the two methods(P>0.05). Conclusion There are no significant differences for testing serum TRAb between CLIA and RIA , while the CLIA method has advantages of high sensitivity and specificity, high speed and automation, and non-radioactive, to facilitate the clinical application.
