[1]杨 洋,张 旭,白 梅,等.人血清布鲁氏菌病两种检测方法比较[J].医学信息,2019,32(12):174-175.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2019.12.059]
　YANG Yang,ZHANG Xu,BAI Mei,et al.Comparison of Two Methods for Detection of Human Serum Brucellosis[J].Journal of Medical Information,2019,32(12):174-175.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2019.12.059]
点击复制

人血清布鲁氏菌病两种检测方法比较()
分享到：

医学信息[ISSN:1006-1959/CN:61-1278/R]

卷:
32卷
期数:
2019年12期
页码:
174-175
栏目:
诊疗技术
出版日期:
2019-06-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparison of Two Methods for Detection of Human Serum Brucellosis
文章编号:
1006-1959（2019）12-0174-02
作者:
杨 洋; 张 旭; 白 梅; 张丽华
辽宁省锦州市疾病预防控制中心微生物检验科，辽宁 锦州 121000
Author(s):
YANG Yang; ZHANG Xu; BAI Mei; ZHANG Li-hua
Department of Microbiology Laboratory,Jinzhou Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Jinzhou 121000,Liaoning,China
关键词:
布鲁菌病; 虎红平板凝集试验; 试管凝集试验; 符合率
Keywords:
Key words：Brucellosis; Tiger red plate agglutination test; Tube agglutination test; Coincidence rate
分类号:
R516.7
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2019.12.059
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的 对比分析虎红平板凝集实验（RBPT）和试管凝集实验（SAT）两种检测方法的实验结果，为提高布鲁菌病实验室检测水平提供依据。方法 同时采用RBPT和SAT两种方法对2016年1月~2017年12月到锦州市疾控中心布病免疫门诊就诊的高危人群2873份人血清进行布鲁菌病实验室检测，对检测结果进行对比分析。结果 RBPT的阳性率为53.11%（1526/2873），SAT的阳性率为52.41%（1506/2873）。RBPT与SAT总体阳性进行比较：敏感度为98.47%（1483/1506），特异性为96.85%（1324/1367）,符合率为97.70%（2807/2873），两种检测方法符合率很高；RBPT与SAT 1:100++及以上阳性者比较，符合率为72.96%（2096/2873），两种检测方法符合率不高。结论 RBPT不能代替SAT用于布鲁菌病的临床诊断，对SAT凝集低滴度者应跟踪调查。
Abstract:
Abstract：Objective To compare and analyze the experimental results of two methods of detection of tiger red plate agglutination test (RBPT) and tube agglutination test (SAT), in order to improve the detection level of brucellosis laboratory. Methods RBPT and SAT were used to test the results of Brucellosis in 2873 human serum from high-risk groups in the outpatient department of outpatient disease in Jinzhou City from January 2016 to December 2017 and Comparative analysis this. Results The positive rate of RBPT was 53.11% (1526/2873), and the positive rate of SAT was 52.41% (1506/2873). RBPT was compared with the overall positive SAT: sensitivity was 98.47% (1483/1506), specificity was 96.85% (1324/1367), and the coincidence rate was 97.70% (2807/2873). The coincidence rate of the two methods was high; Compared with SAT 1:100++ and above, the RBPT was 72.96% (2096/2873), and the coincidence rate of the two methods was not high. Conclusion RBPT cannot replace the SAT for the clinical diagnosis of brucellosis, and the SAT agglutination low titer should be followed up.

参考文献/References:

[1]中华人民共和国卫生部.WS 269-2019布鲁氏菌病诊断标准[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2019. [2]田晶,张旭,白梅,等.2013年锦州市布鲁氏菌病高危人群血清学调查分析[J].中国卫生检验杂志,2014,24(7):1026-1027. [3]苏晓玲,樊永贞,王佳敏,等.布病血清学检测RBPT与SAT一致性研究中国卫生检验杂志,2015,25(9):1357-1359. [4]绍宏业,张帅清.107份人血清布鲁氏菌病两种检测方法比较[J].中国卫生检验杂志,2013,23(10):2294. [5]王佳,徐卫民.布鲁氏菌病血清学诊断研究进展[J].中国病原生物学杂志,2018,3(2):149-152.

相似文献/References:

[1]范海清.经过羊道感染神经布鲁菌病1例报告[J].医学信息,2021,34(12):191.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2021.12.053]

更新日期/Last Update: 2019-06-15