摘要
目的比较生理盐水直接涂片法、醛醚沉淀法及ELISA 3种方法检测粪便中溶组织内阿米巴的优缺点。方法采集受检者粪便标本278份.分别采用3种方法进行阿米巴原虫感染检测,检测结果进行统计学处理,分析3种方法的阳性检出率、准确率、敏感性、特异性及费用。结果生理盐水直接涂片法、醛醚沉淀法和ELISA法的阳性率分别为9.71%、10.79%和12.23%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);阳性标本经PCR确证,3种方法的阳性符合率分别为48.71%、51.11%和77.36%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。生理盐水直接涂片法费用低(1元/份),耗时少(0.1 h～0.2 h)。结论粪便溶组织内阿米巴检测推荐使用ELISA法,其次是醛醚沉淀法,如果用生理盐水涂片法,至少要重复检测3次。
Objective To compare the advantages and disadvantages of physiological saline method of direct smears （PSMDS）, formal-ether concentration （FEC） and ELISA for examination of Entamoeba tropicalis in feces. Methods 278 feces were collected from examinees, and then the infection of amoebiasis were examined by three methods. The test results were processed by statistics to analyze and compare positive rates, precise rate, sensitivity, speciality and costs from the three methods. Results The positive rates of PSMDS, FEC and ELISA were 9.71%, 10.79 % and 12.23 %, respectively, and there was no significant difference among them （P〉0.05）. The positive samples tested by the three methods were further confirmed by PCR, the consistent rates were respectively 48.71 %, 51.11 % and 77.36%, and they were significantly different（P〈0.05）. The cost and time PSMDS spent were the lowest, ￥1 and 0. 1 h-0. 2 h per specimen. Conclusion ELISA is recommended as the first alternative for detection of En. tropicalis in feces, the second is FEC. If PSMDS was used, it would be necessary to repeat three times each sample.
出处
《中国病原生物学杂志》
CSCD
2008年第9期679-680,689,共3页
Journal of Pathogen Biology
基金
中英高等教育合作项目(No．200610)。
关键词
溶组织内阿米巴
醛醚沉淀法
ELISA
生理盐水直接涂片法
Entamoeba tropicalis
formal-ether concentration
ELISA
physiological saline method of direct smear
作者简介
[通讯作者（简介）]刘慧（1970-），女，本科，主管检验师。研究方向：临床医学检验。E—mail：liubible@yahoo．com．cn
