[1]白经纬.微生物快速培养检测在小儿肺炎支原体感染中的诊断价值[J].医学信息,2022,35(24):151-153.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2022.24.033]
　BAI Jing-wei.Diagnostic Value of Rapid Microbial Culture Detection in Mycoplasma Pneumoniae Infection in Children[J].Journal of Medical Information,2022,35(24):151-153.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2022.24.033]
点击复制

微生物快速培养检测在小儿肺炎支原体感染中的诊断价值()
分享到：

医学信息[ISSN:1006-1959/CN:61-1278/R]

卷:
35卷
期数:
2022年24期
页码:
151-153
栏目:
诊疗技术
出版日期:
2022-12-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
Diagnostic Value of Rapid Microbial Culture Detection in Mycoplasma Pneumoniae Infection in Children
文章编号:
1006-1959（2022）24-0151-03
作者:
白经纬
（佳木斯市中心医院检验科，黑龙江 佳木斯 154002）
Author(s):
BAI Jing-wei
(Laboratory of Jiamusi Central Hospital,Jiamusi 154002,Heilongjiang,China)
关键词:
肺炎支原体; 微生物快速培养; 快速血清学检验
Keywords:
Mycoplasma pneumoniae; Rapid microbial culture; Rapid serological test
分类号:
R725.6
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2022.24.033
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的 探讨微生物快速培养检测在小儿肺炎支原体感染中的诊断价值。方法 选取2019年6月-2021年10月在我院接受治疗的肺炎支原体感染患者44例为观察对象，采用随机数字表法将其分为对照组（22例，采用快速血清学检验）和实验组（22例，采用微生物快速培养检验）。比较两组肺炎支原体阳性检出率，不同年龄、病程的肺炎支原体阳性检出率。结果 实验组检出肺炎支原体阳性18例，阴性4例，阳性检出率为86.00%；对照组检出肺炎支原体阳性15例，阴性7例，阳性检出率68.00%；实验组肺炎支原体阳性检出率高于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；实验组1~4岁患儿肺炎支原体阳性检出率高于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；两组5~8岁、9~12岁患儿肺炎支原阳性体检出率比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；实验组病程＜7 d的患儿肺炎支原体阳性检出率高于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；两组病程＞7 d的患儿肺炎支原体阳性检出率比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 与快速血清学检验方法相比，微生物快速培养检测小儿肺炎支原体感染的阳性检出率更高，针对年龄较小及病程较短的患者检测效果更好，有助于肺炎支原体感染的早期诊断，值得临床应用。
Abstract:
Objective To explore the diagnostic value of rapid microbial culture detection in children with mycoplasma pneumoniae infection.Methods A total of 44 patients with mycoplasma pneumoniae infection who were treated in our hospital from June 2019 to October 2021 were selected as observation objects. They were divided into control group ( 22 cases, rapid serological test ) and experimental group ( 22 cases, rapid microbial culture test ) by random number table method. The positive detection rate of mycoplasma pneumoniae and the positive detection rate of mycoplasma pneumoniae in different age and course of disease were compared between the two groups.Results In the experimental group, 18 cases were positive, 4 cases were negative, and the positive detection rate was 86.00%. In the control group, 15 cases were positive for mycoplasma pneumoniae, 7 cases were negative, and the positive detection rate was 68.00%. The positive detection rate of mycoplasma pneumoniae in the experimental group was higher than that in the control group, the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The positive detection rate of mycoplasma pneumoniae in children aged 1-4 years of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the detection rate of positive pneumonia in children aged 5-8 years and 9-12 years between the two groups (P>0.05). The positive detection rate of mycoplasma pneumoniae in children with disease course <7 d of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the positive detection rate of mycoplasma pneumoniae in children with disease course >7 d between the two groups (P>0.05).Conclusion Compared with the rapid serological test method, the positive detection rate of rapid microbial culture in the detection of mycoplasma pneumoniae infection in children is higher. The detection effect is better for patients with younger age and shorter course of disease, which is helpful for the early diagnosis of mycoplasma pneumoniae infection and worthy of clinical application.

参考文献/References:

[1]Jujaray D,Juan LZ,Shrestha S,et al.Pattern and Significance of Asymptomatic Elevation of Liver Enzymes in Mycoplasma Pneumonia in Children[J].Clinical Pediatrics,2017,57(1):57-61.[2]S?覬ndergaard MJ,Friis MB,Hansen DS,et al.Clinical manifestations in infants and children with Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection[J].PLos One,2018,13(4):e0195288.[3]陈咏丽,严晓娟.小儿肺炎支原体感染肺外消化系统损害及其相关因素分析[J].重庆医学,2014,43(7):863-866.[4]陈志毅,刘英.微生物培养检测技术快速检测肺炎支原体感染的诊断价值[J].中国药物与临床,2021,21(6):1025-1027.[5]吴文豪,甘海忠,李莉,等.微生物快速培养检测法与快速血清学检验法在成人肺炎支原体感染中的诊断价值对比[J].中国地方病防治杂志,2017,32(11):1281,1283.[6]Narita M.Pathogenesis of extrapulmonary manifestations of Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection with special reference to pneumonia[J].Journal of Infection &Chemotherapy Official,2010,16(3):162-169.[7]Zeng WY,Li Y,Xu ZL,et al.Severe Mycoplasma Pneumonia in Child with Bilateral Parapneumonic Effusion Successfully Treated with Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine: A Case Report[J].Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine,2018,24(9):683-685. [8]Rogozinski LE,Alverson BK,Biondi EA.Diagnosis and treatment of mycoplasma pneumoniae infection in children [J].Chinese Community Doctors,2017,69(2):156-160. [9]陈亚利,朱正国.快速血清学和微生物培养检测对小儿肺炎支原体感染的临床诊断价值[J].中国妇幼保健,2019,34(20):4702-4704.[10]周汝科,李彬,尤玉宗.血清学检测和微生物快速培养在肺炎支原体感染中的诊断价值[J].中国国境卫生检疫杂志,2021,44(2):124-125,148.[11]杨雪飞,彭攀,焦常锁,等.微生物快速培养检测在诊断儿童肺炎支原体感染中的价值[J].实验与检验医学,2020,38(1):115-117.[12]张艳红.研究不同检验方法对小儿肺炎支原体感染的效果[J].哈尔滨医药,2019,39(2):130-132.[13]赵洪波,李国锋,薛璟.快速血清学检验和微生物快速培养检测诊断小儿肺炎支原体感染的价值分析 [J].齐齐哈尔医学院学报,2016,37(19):2405-2406.[14]Jin X,Zou Y,Zhai J,et al.Refractory Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia with concomitant acute cerebral infarction in a child: A case report and literature review[J].Medicine,2018,97(13):e0103.[15]Biondi E,Mcculloh R,Alverson B,et al.Treatment of Mycoplasma Pneumonia: A Systematic Review [J].Pediatrics,2014,133(6):1081.[16]郝秀春,林善姬,苏炳森,等.快速血清学检验和微生物快速培养检测诊断小儿肺炎支原体感染的临床价值分析[J].中国医药科学,2020,10(3):162-164.[17]孙兰芳,刘德山,于海涛.肺炎支原体快速培养及血清抗体检测在儿童支原体肺炎早期诊断中的价值 [J].贵州医科大学学报,2018,43(1):107-109,113.[18]齐伟翠,黄声旗.微生物快速培养检测在小儿肺炎支原体感染诊断中的应用效果评价[J].中国卫生检验杂志,2019,29(18):2209-2211.

相似文献/References:

[1]李 娇,林 琳.儿童呼吸道感染者肺炎支原体及肺炎衣原体特异性抗体检测临床意义[J].医学信息,2019,32(03):96.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2019.03.029]
　LI Jiao,LI Lin.Clinical Significance of Detection of Specific Antibodies Against Mycoplasma Pneumoniae and Chlamydia Pneumoniae in Children with Respiratory Tract Infection[J].Journal of Medical Information,2019,32(24):96.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2019.03.029]
[2]郭昱瑄,张盛玉,王熙业,等.肺炎支原体实验室诊断的研究进展[J].医学信息,2019,32(11):26.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2019.11.008]
　GUO Yu-xuan,ZHANG Sheng-Yu,WANG Xi-ye,et al.Progress in Laboratory Diagnosis of Mycoplasma Pneumoniae[J].Journal of Medical Information,2019,32(24):26.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2019.11.008]
[3]石连霞.口咽部正常菌群对肺炎支原体快速培养法试剂盒的影响[J].医学信息,2019,32(11):171.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2019.11.053]
　SHI Lian-xia.Effect of Normal Oropharyngeal Flora on Kit for Rapid Culture of Mycoplasma Pneumoniae[J].Journal of Medical Information,2019,32(24):171.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2019.11.053]
[4]周彩虹.小儿呼吸系统感染后肺炎支原体抗体检测的意义[J].医学信息,2020,33(10):175.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2020.10.054]
　ZHOU Cai-hong.Significance of Detection of Mycoplasma Pneumoniae Antibody After Respiratory Infection in Children[J].Journal of Medical Information,2020,33(24):175.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2020.10.054]
[5]张同强,郑家峰,徐勇胜.暴发性肺炎支原体肺炎的临床特点及治疗[J].医学信息,2020,33(13):26.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2020.13.008]
　ZHANG Tong-qiang,ZHENG Jia-feng,XU Yong-sheng.Clinical Features and Treatment of Fulminant Mycoplasma Pneumoniae Pneumonia[J].Journal of Medical Information,2020,33(24):26.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2020.13.008]
[6]王 琳,王笔金.儿童支原体大叶性肺炎三种病原体检测方法的对比分析[J].医学信息,2024,37(18):83.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.18.015]
　WANG Lin,WANG Bi-jin.Comparative Analysis of Three Pathogen Detection Methods for Mycoplasma Lobar Pneumonia in Children[J].Journal of Medical Information,2024,37(24):83.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.18.015]
[7]宋 波,王玲玲,丰新倩,等.儿童肺炎支原体感染核酸与四种血清学抗体检测方法比较[J].医学信息,2024,37(18):166.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.18.036]
　SONG Bo,WANG Ling-ling,FENG Xin-qian,et al.Comparison of Nucleic Acid and Four Serological Antibody Detection Methodsfor Mycoplasma Pneumoniae Infection in Children[J].Journal of Medical Information,2024,37(24):166.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.18.036]

更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01