[1]冯林冬.不同检测方法在梅毒特异性抗体筛查诊断中的价值分析[J].医学信息,2024,37(17):146-149.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.17.032]
　FENG Lin-dong.Value of Different Detection Methods in the Screening and Diagnosis of Syphilis Specific Antibodies[J].Journal of Medical Information,2024,37(17):146-149.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.17.032]
点击复制

不同检测方法在梅毒特异性抗体筛查诊断中的价值分析()
分享到：

医学信息[ISSN:1006-1959/CN:61-1278/R]

卷:
37卷
期数:
2024年17期
页码:
146-149
栏目:
诊疗技术
出版日期:
2024-09-01

文章信息/Info

Title:
Value of Different Detection Methods in the Screening and Diagnosis of Syphilis Specific Antibodies
文章编号:
1006-1959（2024）17-0146-04
作者:
冯林冬
九江市柴桑区人民医院检验科，江西 九江 332105
Author(s):
FENG Lin-dong
Laboratory Department of Jiujiang Chaisang District People’s Hospital,Jiujiang 332105,Jiangxi,China
关键词:
梅毒特异性抗体; 梅毒; 筛查作用; 诊断效能
Keywords:
Syphilis specific antibody; Syphilis; Screening function; Diagnostic efficacy
分类号:
R446
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.17.032
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的 研究不同检测方法在梅毒特异性抗体筛查诊断中的价值。方法 选取2020年1月-2023年4月我院诊断的60例梅毒患者为研究对象，均行电化学发光免疫法（ECLIA）、化学发光免疫分析（CLIA）、酶联免疫吸附实验（ELISA）检测梅毒特异性抗体，并以快速梅毒螺旋体抗体胶体金法（金标法）作为标准，比较不同检测方法检测结果、诊断效能（灵敏度、特异度、准确率、阳性预测值、阴性预测值）、与金标法检测结果一致性。结果 ECLIA、CLIA法S/CO＜1时，所有标本经金标法复检均为阴性；ELISA法S/CO＜1时，其中2例样本经金标法检测为阳性；ECLIA法S/CO≥5时、CLIA法S/CO≥7时，ELISA法S/CO≥7时，金标法检测阳性率均为100.00%；ECLIA、CLIA、ELISA法检测梅毒特异性抗体灵敏度、特异度、准确率、阳性预测值、阴性预测值比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；ECLIA、CLIA、ELISA法检测梅毒特异性抗体检验结果与金标法检测结果一致性比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；ROC曲线分析显示，ECLIA、CLIA法诊断梅毒的AUC面积比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05），而CLIA、ECLIA法诊断梅毒的AUC面积均大于ELISA比较，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论 当ECLIA、CLIA、ELISA法对梅毒进行筛查时S/CO分别小于5、7、7，需采用金标法进行验证，以减少误诊情况。但相对比较，ECLIA法、CLIA法诊断效能高于ELISA法。
Abstract:
Objective To study the value of different detection methods in the screening and diagnosis of syphilis-specific antibodies.Methods A total of 60 patients with syphilis diagnosed in our hospital from January 2020 to April 2023 were selected as the research objects. Electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA), chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) were used to detect syphilis-specific antibodies. The colloidal gold method of rapid treponema pallidum antibody (gold standard method) was used as the standard to compare the results of different detection methods, diagnostic efficacy (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value), and consistency with the results of gold standard method.Results When ECLIA and CLIA S/CO<1, all specimens were negative by gold standard method. When S/CO<1 by ELISA, 2 samples were positive by gold standard method. When S/CO≥5 by ECLIA, S/CO≥7 by CLIA and S/CO≥7 by ELISA, the positive rate ofgold standard method was 100.00%. There was no significant difference in the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of ECLIA, CLIA and ELISA in the detection of syphilis specific antibody (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the consistency between the results of syphilis specific antibody detection by ECLIA, CLIA, ELISA and gold standard method (P>0.05). ROC curve analysis showed that there was no significant difference in AUC area between ECLIA and CLIA in the diagnosis of syphilis (P>0.05), while the AUC area of CLIA and ECLIA in the diagnosis of syphilis was greater than that of ELISA (P<0.05).Conclusion When ECLIA, CLIA and ELISA are used to screen syphilis, S/CO is less than 5, 7 and 7, respectively, gold standard method should be used for verification to reduce misdiagnosis. However, the diagnostic efficiency of ECLIA and CLIA was higher than that of ELISA.

参考文献/References:

[1]杨浩,蒙国煌,张洪福,等.不同梅毒检验方法检测梅毒螺旋体准确率比较[J].现代诊断与治疗,2018,29(10):1529-1530.[2]黎翠翠,谭俊青,李蔼文,等.化学发光法检测梅毒抗体在临床筛查试验中的应用价值[J].实验与检验医学,2018,36(2):207-208,224.[3]樊璐,李玉,庄养林,等.南昌地区无偿献血者梅毒抗体血清学检测结果及感染状况分析[J].江西医药,2022,57(3):223-227,231.[4]林永前,钟海英.54549例住院患者梅毒血清学检测结果分析[J].中国麻风皮肤病杂志,2019,35(8):457-459.[5]郑淑华,黄瑞玉,卢春敏,等.化学发光法和TPPA试验检测妇幼人群梅毒螺旋体抗体假阳性对比分析[J].中国皮肤性病学杂志,2021,35(3):349-352.[6]Ji H,Chang L,Zhao J,et al.Evaluation of ELISA and CLIA for Treponema pallidum specific antibody detection in China: A multicenter study[J].J Microbiol Methods,2019,166:105742.[7]李梅,李颖.体检人员血清梅毒抗体33575例检测结果分析[J].基层医学论坛,2018,22(2):227-228.[8]刘伟非.化学发光微粒子免疫法在梅毒特异性抗体检测中的应用[J].职业卫生与应急救援,2017,35(5):450-451.[9]刘春华,任高翔,耿杰,等.五种梅毒血清学试验方法在梅毒临床分期中的应用分析[J].河南预防医学杂志,2020,31(9):662-664.[10]贺锋,程金凤,蔡细英,等.2种化学发光仪检测梅毒螺旋体特异性抗体性能分析[J].临床血液学杂志,2019,32(4):304-306.[11]王欣俞,张延海,崔凯,等.西门子ADVIA Centaur XP化学发光免疫分析仪检测梅毒螺旋体特异性抗体的测量阈值建立及结果比较[J].生物工程学报,2020,36(8):1672-1678.[12]王飞,黄艳春,吉军,等.梅毒螺旋体抗体的4种血清学检测方法的应用评价[J].新疆医科大学学报,2007,30(3):250-252.[13]王欣俞,赵晋文,焦曼玉,等.梅毒免疫印迹法在梅毒血清固定患者诊断中的临床应用[J].医学综述,2020,26(24):4957-4961,4967.[14]郑新灵,季燕,许鹿舫,等.2013-2018年台州地区梅毒感染孕产妇所生小于胎龄早产儿不良结局研究[J].中国艾滋病性病,2020,26(6):629-631.[15]戴艳,王红,王静,等.扬州市2013-2015年梅毒母婴传播阻断工作临床干预情况[J].中国艾滋病性病,2017,23(12):1135-1137.[16]吴卫国,田丰,徐郁萍,等.ELISA和TPPA检测无偿献血者中梅毒的结果与分析[J].标记免疫分析与临床,2017,24(12):1383-1385.[17]刘洋,梅迪,申爽.电化学发光法检测梅毒螺旋体特异性抗体的应用研究[J].中国微生态学杂志,2017,29(2):204-206.[18]张薇,车玉传.雅培ARCHITECT i2000SR在梅毒实验室诊断中的临床应用和评价[J].检验医学与临床,2018,15(24):3721-3725.[19]白园园,陈占国,王慧燕,等.住院患者梅毒抗体检测结果分析[J].医学研究杂志,2018,47(11):159-163.[20]林博,金京南,张延江,等.2种化学发光法检测梅毒螺旋体特异性抗体阳性的临床探讨[J].国际检验医学杂志,2016,37(19):2675-2676,2679.

相似文献/References:

[1]杨 凯.苄星青霉素在HIV感染合并梅毒中的临床疗效观察[J].医学信息,2018,31(12):141.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2018.12.044]
　YANG Kai.Clinical Efficacy of Benzathine Penicillin in HIV Infection with Syphilis[J].Journal of Medical Information,2018,31(17):141.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2018.12.044]
[2]陶春妃.TP-光激化学发光、TPPA、TRUST试验的临床应用评价[J].医学信息,2019,32(23):164.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2019.23.052]
　TAO Chun-fei.Clinical Application Evaluation of TP-photoexcited Chemiluminescence,TPPA and TRUST Test[J].Journal of Medical Information,2019,32(17):164.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2019.23.052]
[3]王可玲,于艳妮,刘 鹏.梅毒的临床分期特征及其实验室检测方法[J].医学信息,2020,33(06):27.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2020.06.009]
　PANG Yan-hui,PENG Wei,TAO Wen-jie,et al.Clinical Staging Characteristics of Syphilis and its Laboratory Detection Methods[J].Journal of Medical Information,2020,33(17):27.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2020.06.009]
[4]程玉燕,李蔚然,杨 森.2010~2015年合肥市某三甲医院梅毒流行特征报告[J].医学信息,2020,33(10):130.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2020.10.038]
　CHENG Yu-yan,LI Wei-ran,YANG Sen.Epidemiological Characteristics of Syphilis in a Top Three Hospital in Hefei from 2010 to 2015[J].Journal of Medical Information,2020,33(17):130.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2020.10.038]
[5]徐田梅.2011-2020年抚顺市东洲区梅毒病流行病学分析[J].医学信息,2022,35(05):150.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2022.05.039]
　XU Tian-mei.Epidemiological Analysis of Syphilis in Dongzhou District of Fushun City from 2011 to 2020[J].Journal of Medical Information,2022,35(17):150.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2022.05.039]
[6]周贤位,杨水秀,肖文革,等.梅毒患者血清学检测结果分析[J].医学信息,2022,35(11):16.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2022.11.005]
　ZHOU Xian-wei,YANG Shui-xiu,XIAO Wen-ge,et al.Analysis of Serological Test Results of Syphilis Patients[J].Journal of Medical Information,2022,35(17):16.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2022.11.005]
[7]曾冬梅.ELISA法和TRUST法在梅毒检测中的应用[J].医学信息,2022,35(17):138.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2022.17.038]
　ZENG Dong-mei.Application of ELISA and TRUST in Syphilis Detection[J].Journal of Medical Information,2022,35(17):138.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2022.17.038]
[8]陈云梅.梅毒初筛阳性患者对梅毒相关知识的知晓状况及影响因素研究[J].医学信息,2023,36(23):84.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2023.23.021]
　CHEN Yun-mei.Study on the Awareness of Syphilis-related Knowledge and its Influencing Factors in Patients with Positive Syphilis Screening[J].Journal of Medical Information,2023,36(17):84.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2023.23.021]

更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01