[1]唐衍兴,谢明明.酶联免疫吸附法检测与快速血浆反应素试验在梅毒检验中的价值分析[J].医学信息,2025,38(06):143-146.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2025.06.026]
　TANG Yanxing,XIE Mingming.Analysis of the Value of Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay and Rapid Plasma Reagin Test in Syphilis Test[J].Journal of Medical Information,2025,38(06):143-146.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2025.06.026]
点击复制

酶联免疫吸附法检测与快速血浆反应素试验在梅毒检验中的价值分析()
分享到：

医学信息[ISSN:1006-1959/CN:61-1278/R]

卷:
38卷
期数:
2025年06期
页码:
143-146
栏目:
论著
出版日期:
2025-03-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
Analysis of the Value of Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay and Rapid Plasma Reagin Test in Syphilis Test
文章编号:
1006-1959（2025）06-0143-04
作者:
唐衍兴1; 谢明明2
1.南昌市新建区疾病预防控制中心检验科，江西 南昌 330100；2.南昌市经济技术开发区人民医院/南昌市中西医结合医院经开分院检验科，江西 南昌 330032
Author(s):
TANG Yanxing1;  XIE Mingming2
1.Department of Laboratory, Nanchang Xinjian District Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanchang 330100, Jiangxi, China;2.Department of Laboratory, Nanchang Economic and Technological Development Zone People’s Hospital/Nanchang Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Hospital Economic and Technological Development Zone Branch, Nanchang 330032, Jiangxi, China
关键词:
酶联免疫吸附测定法; 快速血浆反应素试验; 梅毒螺旋体; 梅毒螺旋体抗体; 非梅毒螺旋体抗体
Keywords:
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay;  Rapid plasma reagin test;  Treponema pallidum;  Treponema pallidum antibody;  Non-Treponema pallidum antibody
分类号:
R446
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2025.06.026
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的 分析酶联免疫吸附法检测（ELISA）与快速血浆反应素试验（RPR）在梅毒检验中的应用价值。方法 以2023年1月-2024年1月南昌市新建区疾病预防控制中心接诊的85例疑似梅毒患者为研究对象，依次行ELISA与RPR检测，统计两种检测方式的阳性检出率，比较ELISA与RPR在不同分期梅毒患者中的阳性检出率，分析二者在梅毒检验中的诊断效能。结果 ELISA的梅毒阳性检出率高于RPR（P＜0.05）。ELISA对一期、二期梅毒患者的阳性检出率高于RPR（P＜0.05），但ELISA与RPR对三期梅毒患者的阳性检出率比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。ELISA在梅毒检验中的诊断准确性、敏感度、特异度高于RPR（P＜0.05）。结论 ELISA与RPR在梅毒检验中均具有一定价值，其中ELISA的诊断效能相对更高。
Abstract:
Objective To analyze the application value of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and rapid plasma reagin test (RPR) in syphilis test. Methods From January 2023 to January 2024, 85 patients with suspected syphilis admitted to Nanchang Xinjian District Center for Disease Control and Prevention were selected as the research objects. ELISA and RPR were performed in turn. The positive detection rates of the two detection methods were counted. The positive detection rates of ELISA and RPR in patients with different stages of syphilis were compared, and the diagnostic efficacy of the two methods in syphilis test was analyzed. Results The positive rate of syphilis in ELISA was higher than that in RPR (P<0.05). The positive detection rate of ELISA in patients with primary and secondary syphilis was higher than that of RPR (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in the positive detection rate of ELISA and RPR in patients with tertiary syphilis (P>0.05). The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of ELISA in syphilis test were higher than those of RPR (P<0.05). Conclusion Both ELISA and RPR have certain value in syphilis test, and the diagnostic efficiency of ELISA is relatively higher.

参考文献/References:

[1]张畅,梁丽,李东冬.三种方法学检测不同标本在梅毒患者诊疗中的价值[J].中国性科学,2020,29(10):136-138. [2]Attie A,de Almeida-Neto C,S Witkin S,et al.Detection and analysis of blood donors seropositive for syphilis[J].Transfusion Medicine,2021,31(2):121-128.[3]Palak G,Christopher FK,Marcus CY,et al.Increased syphilis testing and detection of late latent syphilis among women after switching from risk-based to opt-out testing strategy in an urban Australian sexual health clinic: a retrospective observational study[J].The Lancet Regional Health - Western Pacific,2023,40:100875-100875.[4]罗桂云.不同梅毒血清学检测策略在梅毒诊断中的应用价值[J].实用检验医师杂志,2023,15(3):295-298.[5]蔡成,王青,魏薇.酶联免疫吸附法检测与快速血浆反应素试验在梅毒检验中的价值分析[J].贵州医药,2023,47(9):1460-1461.[6]支张卓玛,尼玛顿珠,扎西央宗,等.CMIA、TPPA与TRUST检测梅毒的临床应用[J].标记免疫分析与临床,2023,30(7):1217-1219.[7]耿东方.不同检测方法对梅毒分期的鉴别价值比较[J].山西医药杂志,2023,52(5):337-340.[8]刘学政.酶联免疫吸附试验与胶体金法检测梅毒螺旋体抗体的结果比较[J].检验医学与临床,2022,19(23):3283-3285.[9]张缤月.酶联免疫吸附法和实时荧光定量PCR法检验EB病毒的效果比较[J].中国实验诊断学,2022,26(7):1078-1081.[10]Vanderleest JG.Neurosyphilis, Ocular Syphilis, and Otosyphilis: Detection and Treatment[J].American Family Physician,2022,106(2):122-123.[11]陈明军,张燕,吕永磊.梅毒化学发光与酶联免疫试剂的性能对比分析[J].临床血液学杂志,2022,35(2):126-129. [12]景文博,姚秀.梅毒螺旋体明胶凝集试验定量检测在神经梅毒诊疗中的临床意义研究[J].贵州医药,2021,45(5):802-803.[13]周智峰.酶联免疫法与TPPA检测梅毒螺旋体抗体的诊疗效果分析[J].世界临床药物,2021,42(5):428.[14]曾雪珍,古醒辉,许晓绚,等.深圳市2007-2009年和2017-2019年无偿献血人群梅毒血清学检测结果分析[J].中国艾滋病性病,2021,27(3):299-301. [15]熊新平,左素俊,张福娥,等.酶联免疫吸附试验在人类免疫缺陷病毒诊断中的应用探讨[J].中国药物与临床,2021,21(2):333-334.[16]刘冬梅,闫晓武,王东.胶体金法和ELISA法检测梅毒抗体假阴性观察分析[J].中国中西医结合皮肤性病学杂志,2020,19(6):564-567.[17]肖霞,滕春燕,马慧,等.三种梅毒螺旋体血清学检验方法的临床应用分析[J].中国实验诊断学,2020,24(2):286-289.[18]崔文颖,翁文佳,闫俊玲,等.血清快速血浆反应素试验阴性梅毒患者发生神经梅毒的临床观察[J].北京医学,2023,45(10):862-865.[19]汪媛,常中宝,储晓敏,等.电化学发光法、化学发光法与酶联免疫吸附试验检测梅毒抗体效果对比分析 [J].医学动物防制,2020,36(7):712-715.[20]庄洁伟,郭辉,汪小娟.ELISA与TRUST在妊娠合并梅毒患者筛查中的应用价值对比[J].中国性科学,2019,28(12):118-120.[21]陈邦锐,许婷婷,张红,等.4种不同方法在献血者梅毒检测中的应用[J].检验医学与临床,2022,19(7):898-901.[22]吴晓燕,蓝蔚蔚,谭晓霞,等.酶联免疫吸附法检测与甲苯胺红不加热血清试验在梅毒检验中的价值对比[J].中国地方病防治杂志,2019,34(5):577,579.[23]Solaimalai D,Rathore S,Beck MM,et al.Enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) versus Venereal Disease Research Laboratory test (VDRL) and rapid plasma reagin test (RPR) for screening of syphilis in pregnant women[J].International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics,2020,150(1):103-107.[24]颜晓林,胡融融.明胶颗粒凝集试验联合ELISA法在梅毒检测中的应用价值[J].中国微生态学杂志,2020,32(9):1090-1093.[25]Flipse J,Niekamp AM,Dirks A,et al.Refining Timely Diagnosis of Early Syphilis by Using Treponema pallidum PCR or IgM Immunoblotting Next to Conventional Serology for Syphilis[J].Journal of Clinical Microbiology,2023,61(6):223.

更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01