中外医疗
中外醫療
중외의료
CHINA FOREIGN MEDICAL TREATMENT
2015年
22期
72-73
,共2页
化学发光免疫测定法%梅毒螺旋体抗体%临床应用
化學髮光免疫測定法%梅毒螺鏇體抗體%臨床應用
화학발광면역측정법%매독라선체항체%림상응용
Chemiluminescence immunoassay%Treponema pallidum antibody%Clinical application
目的：探讨化学发光免疫法(CLIA法)应用于检测梅毒螺旋体抗体(TPA)的临床价值。方法随机选取2014年12月-2015年1月间的100例健康人为对照，将300例TPA阳性患者作为研究对象，分别进行TPPA和TRUST检测和CLIA法检测，以CV、灵敏度等为指标，评价CLIA法的临床应用价值。结果①组内、组间在不同TPA浓度下的CV均<10%。且CLIA分析仪的灵敏度(1/16)高于TPPA(1/80)，差异有统计学义(P<0.05)。②CLIA、TPPA检测的阳性率分别为87.7%(264/300)、86.3%(250/300)，差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)，但均高于TRUST法42.3%(127/300)(P<0.05)。其中阴性组患者血清检测的阴性率均为100%。结论 CLIA法检测TPA的结果准确率高，CLIA分析仪灵敏度高、不易受诸多外在干扰和限制、携带污染率低，值得推广应用。
目的：探討化學髮光免疫法(CLIA法)應用于檢測梅毒螺鏇體抗體(TPA)的臨床價值。方法隨機選取2014年12月-2015年1月間的100例健康人為對照，將300例TPA暘性患者作為研究對象，分彆進行TPPA和TRUST檢測和CLIA法檢測，以CV、靈敏度等為指標，評價CLIA法的臨床應用價值。結果①組內、組間在不同TPA濃度下的CV均<10%。且CLIA分析儀的靈敏度(1/16)高于TPPA(1/80)，差異有統計學義(P<0.05)。②CLIA、TPPA檢測的暘性率分彆為87.7%(264/300)、86.3%(250/300)，差異無統計學意義(P>0.05)，但均高于TRUST法42.3%(127/300)(P<0.05)。其中陰性組患者血清檢測的陰性率均為100%。結論 CLIA法檢測TPA的結果準確率高，CLIA分析儀靈敏度高、不易受諸多外在榦擾和限製、攜帶汙染率低，值得推廣應用。
목적：탐토화학발광면역법(CLIA법)응용우검측매독라선체항체(TPA)적림상개치。방법수궤선취2014년12월-2015년1월간적100례건강인위대조，장300례TPA양성환자작위연구대상，분별진행TPPA화TRUST검측화CLIA법검측，이CV、령민도등위지표，평개CLIA법적림상응용개치。결과①조내、조간재불동TPA농도하적CV균<10%。차CLIA분석의적령민도(1/16)고우TPPA(1/80)，차이유통계학의(P<0.05)。②CLIA、TPPA검측적양성솔분별위87.7%(264/300)、86.3%(250/300)，차이무통계학의의(P>0.05)，단균고우TRUST법42.3%(127/300)(P<0.05)。기중음성조환자혈청검측적음성솔균위100%。결론 CLIA법검측TPA적결과준학솔고，CLIA분석의령민도고、불역수제다외재간우화한제、휴대오염솔저，치득추엄응용。
Objective To explore the clinical value of chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) in the detection of treponema pal-lidum antibody (TPA). Methods 100 healthy people and 300 patients treated in our hospital during December 2014 and January 2015 were selected as the research object, all of whom underwent detection of TPA by TPPA, TRUST and CLIA. The clinical val-ue of CLIA was evaluated based on its coefficient of variation (CV) and sensitivity. Results ①Inner-group CV and across-group CV under varying concentration of TPA were lower than 10%, and the sensitivity of CLIA was higher than that of TPPA, 1/16 vs 1/80, and the difference was statistically significant, P<0.05. ② the positive rates by CLIA and by TPPA were 87.7%(264/300)and 86.3%(250/300), and the difference was not statistically significant P>0.05, but both of them were higher than that by TRUST, 42.3%(127/300)with statistically significant differences, P<0.05. Conclusion CLTA is worthy of promotion in the detection of TPA due to its higher accuracy and sensitivity, strong anti-interference capability, and low carry-over rate.
