论文部分内容阅读
目的:对比运用不同检测方法检验阴道念球菌的效果,为临床合理选择检测方法提供参考和借鉴。方法:随机选取我院妇产科2011年2月至2014年2月期间住院部和门诊部收治的念球菌性阴道炎患者180例,采用湿片镜检和革兰染色镜检传统检测法、五联检测法、传统检测法联合五联检测法检测患者阴道、宫颈分泌物标本,对比分析诊断阳性率。结果:五联检测阴道念球菌检出率为85.00%,明显高于传统检测方法阴道念球菌检出率的56.67%;联合检测阴道念球菌检出率93.33%,高于五联法的85.00%和传统法56.67%。结论:五联法检测阴道分泌物能准确检出阴道炎病原菌,效果由于传统检测法,但是两种检测法具有互补性,在临床工作中要根据患者的实际情况合理选择检测法。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of different test methods on Candida vaginalis to provide reference and reference for clinical reasonable choice of test methods. Methods: A total of 180 patients with candidal vaginitis admitted to our hospital from February 2011 to February 2014 were selected randomly from our hospital for obstetrics and gynecology. The traditional method of detection by wet endoscopy and Gram staining was used. Five detection methods, the traditional detection method combined with five detection of vaginal and cervical secretions in patients with specimens, comparative analysis of diagnostic positive rate. Results: The detection rate of Candida vaginalis was 85.00%, which was significantly higher than that of the traditional detection method of Candida albicans (56.67%). The detection rate of Candida vaginalis was 93.33%, higher than 85.00% And traditional law 56.67%. Conclusion: The detection of vaginal discharge by the five-joint method can accurately detect the pathogens of vaginitis. The traditional detection method is effective. However, the two detection methods are complementary. In the clinical work, the detection method should be selected reasonably according to the patients’ actual conditions.