两种不同方法对轮状病毒和腺病毒抗原检测的对比分析
|
摘要
目的研究比较在腹泻患者中应用仪器法检测和手工法检测的临床效果。方法此文数据计算时参照随机数字表法的形式将2017年4月至2017年11月期间收治的100例腹泻患者随机分为实验组以及参照组,将手工法检测收入到参照组,将仪器法检测收入到实验组,分析对比实验组和参照组腹泻患者轮状病毒抗原和腺病毒抗原的检测情况。结果实验组腹泻患者轮状病毒检测抗原阳性率18.00%、腺病毒检测抗原阳性率28.00%、总阳性率46.00%,对比参照组腹泻患者轮状病毒检测抗原阳性率4.00%、腺病毒检测抗原阳性率12.00%、总阳性率16.00%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。用液相芯片法对手工法检测阳性和仪器法检测阳性标本开展核酸验证,检测金标准是核酸检测结果。实验组轮状病毒检测假阳性率22.22%、腺病毒检测假阳性率28.57%、轮状病毒和腺病毒检测假阳性率33.33%高于比参照组轮状病毒检测假阳性率5.00%、腺病毒检测假阳性率33.33%、轮状病毒和腺病毒检测假阳性率0%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论将仪器法检测应用在腹泻患者中的作用较为显著,可显著提升轮状病毒抗原和腺病毒抗原检出的阳性率。
Objective To compare the clinical effects of instrumental and manual detection in patients with diarrhea. Methods This article data calculated with reference to the form of a random number table method, during April 2017 to November 2017 admitted 100 patients with diarrhea were randomly divided into experimental group and control group, the manual method to detect the income to the reference group, will the income to the experimental instrument method and contrast analysis of the experimental group and control group patients with diarrhea rotavirus antigen and adenovirus antigen detection. Results The positive rate of rotavirus, adenovirus and total antigen in diarrhea patients in the experimental group was18.00%, 28.00% and 46.00%, respectively. The difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). Nucleic acid verification was carried out by using liquid chip method to detect positive samples and instrument method to detect positive samples. The false positive rate of rotavirus detection in the experimental group was 22.22%, the false positive rate of adenovirus detection was 28.57%, the false positive rate of rotavirus detection and adenovirus detection was 33.33%, higher than that in the control group(5.00%), the false positive rate of adenovirus detection was 33.33%, and the false positive rate of rotavirus detection and adenovirus detection was 0%, the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). Conclusion The positive rate of rotavirus antigen and adenovirus antigen can be significantly increased by the application of instrumental detection in patients with diarrhea.
Objective To compare the clinical effects of instrumental and manual detection in patients with diarrhea. Methods This article data calculated with reference to the form of a random number table method, during April 2017 to November 2017 admitted 100 patients with diarrhea were randomly divided into experimental group and control group, the manual method to detect the income to the reference group, will the income to the experimental instrument method and contrast analysis of the experimental group and control group patients with diarrhea rotavirus antigen and adenovirus antigen detection. Results The positive rate of rotavirus, adenovirus and total antigen in diarrhea patients in the experimental group was18.00%, 28.00% and 46.00%, respectively. The difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). Nucleic acid verification was carried out by using liquid chip method to detect positive samples and instrument method to detect positive samples. The false positive rate of rotavirus detection in the experimental group was 22.22%, the false positive rate of adenovirus detection was 28.57%, the false positive rate of rotavirus detection and adenovirus detection was 33.33%, higher than that in the control group(5.00%), the false positive rate of adenovirus detection was 33.33%, and the false positive rate of rotavirus detection and adenovirus detection was 0%, the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). Conclusion The positive rate of rotavirus antigen and adenovirus antigen can be significantly increased by the application of instrumental detection in patients with diarrhea.
引文
[1]张海琼,莫胜福,蒋渝采,等.腹泻患儿轮状病毒与腺病毒抗原检测结果分析[J].中华医院感染学杂志,2016,26(11):21002-21003.
[2]王满杏禹,袁静.198例腹泻婴幼儿轮状病毒与肠道腺病毒感染分析[J].江苏预防医学,2017,28(4):427-428.
[3]陈士伟,周仁希,吴亦栋,等.杭州市0~6岁腹泻儿童轮状病毒感染分析[J].浙江预防医学,2016,28(5):527-528.
[4]于德宪,谢晓波,张培,等.驻穗部队医院腹泻轮状病毒和腺病毒检测结果分析[J].解放军预防医学杂志,2016,34(1):47-48.
[5]张蕾,吕火烊,胡庆丰.杭州地区腹泻儿童轮状病毒与腺病毒感染调查[J].中国微生态学杂志,2017,29(7):811-813.
[6]马慧,沈永明,丁一,等.2013年~2015年天津市儿童医院门诊腹泻儿童轮状病毒和腺病毒的流行病学分析[J].吉林医学,2018,39(1):92-95.
[7]付丽娟,付海龙,孙占宇,等.免疫层析快速法检测肠道腺病毒和轮状病毒研究[J].中国卫生标准管理,2017,8(1):110-111.
[8]张海琼,莫胜福,蒋渝采,等.腹泻患儿轮状病毒与腺病毒抗原检测结果分析[J].中华医院感染学杂志,2016,26(11):2602-2603.
[9]戴木根,刘思宇,丁文杰,等.丽水地区腹泻患儿粪便轮状病毒及腺病毒流行病学分析[J].中华医院感染学杂志,2018,28(6):936-938,952.
[10]王淑云,朱效茹,李政,等.山东省腹泻儿童轮状病毒与腺病毒抗原检测分析[J].中国卫生检验杂志,2018,28(6):654-656.
[11]何艳明,梁秉绍,姚淑雯,等.2171例腹泻患儿轮状病毒和腺病毒检出率及流行特征[J].实用医学杂志,2017,33(11):1872-1875.
[12] Unal N, Yanik K, Aydogdu S, et al. An evaluation of rotavirus and adenovirus antigens by the immunochromatographic method in samples with an initial diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis[J]. Acta Medica Mediterranea, 2016,32(1):81-85.
[2]王满杏禹,袁静.198例腹泻婴幼儿轮状病毒与肠道腺病毒感染分析[J].江苏预防医学,2017,28(4):427-428.
[3]陈士伟,周仁希,吴亦栋,等.杭州市0~6岁腹泻儿童轮状病毒感染分析[J].浙江预防医学,2016,28(5):527-528.
[4]于德宪,谢晓波,张培,等.驻穗部队医院腹泻轮状病毒和腺病毒检测结果分析[J].解放军预防医学杂志,2016,34(1):47-48.
[5]张蕾,吕火烊,胡庆丰.杭州地区腹泻儿童轮状病毒与腺病毒感染调查[J].中国微生态学杂志,2017,29(7):811-813.
[6]马慧,沈永明,丁一,等.2013年~2015年天津市儿童医院门诊腹泻儿童轮状病毒和腺病毒的流行病学分析[J].吉林医学,2018,39(1):92-95.
[7]付丽娟,付海龙,孙占宇,等.免疫层析快速法检测肠道腺病毒和轮状病毒研究[J].中国卫生标准管理,2017,8(1):110-111.
[8]张海琼,莫胜福,蒋渝采,等.腹泻患儿轮状病毒与腺病毒抗原检测结果分析[J].中华医院感染学杂志,2016,26(11):2602-2603.
[9]戴木根,刘思宇,丁文杰,等.丽水地区腹泻患儿粪便轮状病毒及腺病毒流行病学分析[J].中华医院感染学杂志,2018,28(6):936-938,952.
[10]王淑云,朱效茹,李政,等.山东省腹泻儿童轮状病毒与腺病毒抗原检测分析[J].中国卫生检验杂志,2018,28(6):654-656.
[11]何艳明,梁秉绍,姚淑雯,等.2171例腹泻患儿轮状病毒和腺病毒检出率及流行特征[J].实用医学杂志,2017,33(11):1872-1875.
[12] Unal N, Yanik K, Aydogdu S, et al. An evaluation of rotavirus and adenovirus antigens by the immunochromatographic method in samples with an initial diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis[J]. Acta Medica Mediterranea, 2016,32(1):81-85.