CAJ | 학술논문

[目的]对布鲁氏菌病的几种检测方法进行比对分析，为国家标准修订提供参考。[方法]对收集到的669份血清样本用虎红平板凝集试验（RBT）、试管凝集试验（SAT）、补体结合试验（CFT）和酶联免疫吸附试验（ELISA）方法进行检测，比较四种检测方法的一致性、敏感性与特异性。[结果]RBT、SAT、CFT、ELISA四种牛羊布鲁菌病的血清学检测方法一致率较高，Kappa值均大于或等于0.75。RBT敏感性较高，CFT特异性好，而SAT有一定的假阳性和假阴性，ELISA的敏感性和特异性都比较理想。[结论]用RBT初筛，用CFT和ELISA联合诊断结果较为理想。
[목적]대포로씨균병적궤충검측방법진행비대분석，위국가표준수정제공삼고。[방법]대수집도적669빈혈청양본용호홍평판응집시험（RBT）、시관응집시험（SAT）、보체결합시험（CFT）화매련면역흡부시험（ELISA）방법진행검측，비교사충검측방법적일치성、민감성여특이성。[결과]RBT、SAT、CFT、ELISA사충우양포로균병적혈청학검측방법일치솔교고，Kappa치균대우혹등우0.75。RBT민감성교고，CFT특이성호，이SAT유일정적가양성화가음성，ELISA적민감성화특이성도비교이상。[결론]용RBT초사，용CFT화ELISA연합진단결과교위이상。
Objective]Fourdiagnostic methods were compared in order to provide reference for revising the state standard for brucellosis detection. [Method]669 serum samples were collected and tested by using Rose Bengal plate agglutination test(RBT),serum agglutination test(SAT),complement fixation test(CFT) and enzyme linked immunosorbent assay(ELISA).The consistency,sensitivity and specificity of the four assays were compared. [Result] The consistency of RBT,SAT,CFT and ELISA in detection of bovine and ovine brucellosis was quite high,with a Kappa value≧0.75.RBT had a higher sensitivity,CFT had a better specificity,and SAT yielded certain false posi-tives and false negatives. ELISA was both sensitive and specific. [Conclusion]It would be more satisfactory that RBT was firstly used for screening,and CFT and ELISA were used in combination for diagnosis of bovine and ovine brucel-losis.