论文部分内容阅读
目的 通过对4种检测方法的应用分析,为用药后疟疾病例准确诊断提供参考依据.方法 镜检法、RDT、多重PCR法和荧光定量PCR法对55份临床疟疾病例标本进行对比分析.结果 镜检疟原虫阳性39份,阳性率70.91％;RDT检测疟原虫阳性50份,阳性率90.90％;多重PCR检测疟原虫阳性42份,阳性率76.36％;荧光定量PCR检测疟原虫阳性41份,阳性率74.55％.RDT与镜检法检测结果差异有统计学意义(x2=10.446,P=0.001＜o.05);镜检法与RDT法检测结果差异无统计学意义(x2=0.681,P=0.409 ＞0.05);多重PCR方法、荧光定量PCR方法与镜检法检测结果差异均无统计学意义(x2=0.421,P=0.516 ＞0.05;x2=0.183,P=0.669 ＞0.05).4种检测方法比较,多重PCR方法、荧光定量PCR方法灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值较其他两种方法高.结论 “金标准”镜检法易受客观因素影响,检出率低;RDr简单快捷,适合大范围筛查;两种PCR方法灵敏度特异性很高,荧光PCR相对多重PCR方法省时.建议不同方法相结合,以降低误检率.“,”Objective The apphcation of the four methods is analyzed,which prowdes reference tor accurate diagnos1s of malaria cases after treatment.Methods Light microscopy,RDT(Rapid diagnostic tests),multiple PCR and real time PCR method of 55 clinical cases of malaria were compared and analyzed.Results Microscopic detection of Plasmodium positive number is 39,the positive rate was 70.91％;RDT detection of Plasmodium positive number is 50,the positive rate was 90.90％;multiplex PCR detection of Plasmodium positive number 42,the positive rate was 76.36％;real time PCR detection of Plasmodium positive was 41,the positive rate was 74.55％;the detection results of PF in microscopy and RDT showed a significant difference(x2 =0.681,P =0.409);the detection results in multiplex PCR,real time PCR and microscopic method showed no significant differenc (x2 =0.421,P =0.516 ＞ 0.05;x2 =0.183,P =0.669 ＞ 0.05).The sensitivity,specificity,positive predictive value and negative predictive value of real time PCR method were the highest in the four kinds of detection methods.Condusion The “gold standard” microscopy is easily affected by the objective factors,the detection rate is low;the RDT method is simple and suitable for large-scale screening;the sensitivity and specificity of the two methods of PCR is very high,the real time PCR method compared with multiplex PCR method can save more time.It is suggested that the combination of different methods can reduce the false detection rate.