不同临床标本微生物检验的阳性率结果研究
|
摘要
目的对不同临床标本的微生物检验阳性率进行比较研究。方法对2016—2017年度在该院微生物室接收检验的12 115份临床标本进行回顾性研究,其中2016年度6 025份,2017年度6 090份,对比分析两年度不同标本检验结果。结果 2016年度呼吸道标本、血液标本、创口分泌物标本、痰液标本、大便标本及尿液标本的微生物检验阳性率分别40.71%、17.59%、22.53%、17.81%、20.86%、36.06%,2017年度分别为33.20%、12.46%、16.52%、12.32%、21.43%、30.51%,除大便、尿液标本外,其他标本阳性率差异有统计学意义(χ~2=4.194、5.038、10.371、7.385,P<0.05)。结论不同标本的微生物检验阳性率有所差异,且不同时间段也有偏差,应明确相关影响因素,制定可行性控制措施,确保检验结果准确、客观。
Objective To compare the positive rate of microbiological test in different clinical specimens. Methods A retrospective study was conducted on 12 115 clinical specimens received in our laboratory in the microbiology laboratory from2016 to 2017, including 6 025 in 2016 and 6 090 in 2017. The results of different specimens in the two years were compared and analyzed. Results The positive rates of microbiological tests for respiratory specimens, blood specimens, wound secretion specimens, sputum specimens, stool specimens and urine specimens in 2016 were 40.71%, 17.59%, 22.53%,17.81%, 20.86%, 36.06%, respectively. The annual average in 2017 was 33.20%, 12.46%, 16.52%, 12.32%, 21.43%,30.51%. Except for stool and urine samples, the positive rate of other specimens was statistically significant(χ~2=4.194,5.038, 10.371, 7.385, P<0.05). Conclusion The positive rate of microbiological test of different specimens is different, and there are also deviations in different time periods. Relevant influencing factors should be clarified, and feasible control measures should be formulated to ensure accurate and objective test results.
Objective To compare the positive rate of microbiological test in different clinical specimens. Methods A retrospective study was conducted on 12 115 clinical specimens received in our laboratory in the microbiology laboratory from2016 to 2017, including 6 025 in 2016 and 6 090 in 2017. The results of different specimens in the two years were compared and analyzed. Results The positive rates of microbiological tests for respiratory specimens, blood specimens, wound secretion specimens, sputum specimens, stool specimens and urine specimens in 2016 were 40.71%, 17.59%, 22.53%,17.81%, 20.86%, 36.06%, respectively. The annual average in 2017 was 33.20%, 12.46%, 16.52%, 12.32%, 21.43%,30.51%. Except for stool and urine samples, the positive rate of other specimens was statistically significant(χ~2=4.194,5.038, 10.371, 7.385, P<0.05). Conclusion The positive rate of microbiological test of different specimens is different, and there are also deviations in different time periods. Relevant influencing factors should be clarified, and feasible control measures should be formulated to ensure accurate and objective test results.
引文
[1]张卓然,倪语星.临床微生物学和微生物检验[M].北京:人民卫生出版社,2006:528-529.
[2]李从凤.关于临床标本微生物检验的阳性率结果分析[J].中外医疗,2016,35(1):189-190,193.
[3]赵晓红,李明安,徐庆雷.多种临床标本微生物检验阳性率结果的比较分析[J].国际检验医学杂志,2016,37(22):3126-3127,3131.
[4] Jesús,Guinea Emilio,Bouza,et al.Current challenges in themicrobiological diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis[J].Mycopathologia,2014,178(5):403-406.
[5]阎莉范.常见临床标本的微生物检验程序分析[J].中国医药指南,2014,12(32):381-382.
[6]王雪菲.规范化标本采集方案对微生物检验准确性的干预研究[J].中外女性健康研究,2017(10):170-171.
[7] Christoffersen S.The importance of microbiological testing for establishing cause of death in 42 forensic autopsies[J].ForensicSci Int,2015,28(250):27-32.
[8]乔相练.不同临床标本微生物检验的阳性率分析[J].中外医疗,2018,37(4):177-178,181.
[9]李丽,王玖红.不同临床标本微生物检验的阳性率结果对比分析[J].当代医学,2016,22(24):39-40.
[10]王美娟.不同临床标本微生物检验的阳性率结果对比分析[J].中国现代药物应用,2016,10(10):29-30.
[11]杜娟.不同临床标本微生物检验的阳性率结果对比研究[J].河北医学,2015,21(12):2099-2101.
[12]闫雪慧.不同临床标本微生物检验的阳性率结果对比分析[J].中国现代药物应用,2018,12(6):31-32.
[13]吴玉婷.不同时段临床标本微生物检验的阳性率结果[J].中国疗养医学,2016,25(7):737-739.
[2]李从凤.关于临床标本微生物检验的阳性率结果分析[J].中外医疗,2016,35(1):189-190,193.
[3]赵晓红,李明安,徐庆雷.多种临床标本微生物检验阳性率结果的比较分析[J].国际检验医学杂志,2016,37(22):3126-3127,3131.
[4] Jesús,Guinea Emilio,Bouza,et al.Current challenges in themicrobiological diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis[J].Mycopathologia,2014,178(5):403-406.
[5]阎莉范.常见临床标本的微生物检验程序分析[J].中国医药指南,2014,12(32):381-382.
[6]王雪菲.规范化标本采集方案对微生物检验准确性的干预研究[J].中外女性健康研究,2017(10):170-171.
[7] Christoffersen S.The importance of microbiological testing for establishing cause of death in 42 forensic autopsies[J].ForensicSci Int,2015,28(250):27-32.
[8]乔相练.不同临床标本微生物检验的阳性率分析[J].中外医疗,2018,37(4):177-178,181.
[9]李丽,王玖红.不同临床标本微生物检验的阳性率结果对比分析[J].当代医学,2016,22(24):39-40.
[10]王美娟.不同临床标本微生物检验的阳性率结果对比分析[J].中国现代药物应用,2016,10(10):29-30.
[11]杜娟.不同临床标本微生物检验的阳性率结果对比研究[J].河北医学,2015,21(12):2099-2101.
[12]闫雪慧.不同临床标本微生物检验的阳性率结果对比分析[J].中国现代药物应用,2018,12(6):31-32.
[13]吴玉婷.不同时段临床标本微生物检验的阳性率结果[J].中国疗养医学,2016,25(7):737-739.