论文部分内容阅读
目的利用EP12-A2文件推荐方法对肺炎支原体快速鉴定培养药敏法(培养法)和肺炎支原体抗体检测法(抗体法)进行性能评价。方法对我院儿科病区861名住院患儿的病历资料进行回顾性分析,这861名患儿均同时进行了肺炎支原体培养和肺炎支原体抗体检测,将两种方法的检测结果与患儿的出院诊断进行比较。结果两种方法各自的敏感度和特异性的95%可信区间:培养法是[13.2%,23.0%]和[95.1%,97.9%],抗体法是[78.9%,88.3%]和[55.0%,62.7%];两方法之间敏感度和特异性差值的95%CI分别是[-73.6%,-57.8%]和[-1.3%,0.6%],抗体法的敏感度高于培养法,差异有统计学意义。结论医生如果发现患者MP抗体结果与临床症状不符时,应根据用药效果、后期再次MP培养或MP抗体检测而做出综合判断。
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the performance of the Mycoplasma pneumoniae rapid identification and culture sensitivity test (culture method) and Mycoplasma pneumoniae antibody test (antibody method) using the recommended method of EP12-A2. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on the medical records of 861 hospitalized children in our pediatric ward. All of the 861 children were tested for Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Mycoplasma pneumoniae antibody. The results of the two methods were compared with those of the discharged children Diagnostic comparison. Results The 95% confidence intervals for the sensitivity and specificity of the two methods were [13.2%, 23.0%] and [95.1%, 97.9%] in the culture method and [78.9%, 88.3%] and [55.0 %, 62.7%]. The 95% CI of the difference between the two methods was [-73.6%, -57.8%] and [-1.3%, 0.6%], respectively. The sensitivity of the antibody method was higher than that of the culture Act, the difference was statistically significant. Conclusion If the doctor found that the results of patients with MP antibodies and clinical symptoms do not match, should be based on the drug effect, MP MP secondary antibody or post-test to make a comprehensive judgment.