STANDFAST A F
Bull World Health Organ. 1960;23(1):37-45.
The results of the laboratory assays of the Yugoslav typhoid vaccines used in the field trials at Osijek are disappointing when compared with the results of the field trials.The tests carried out at the Lister Institute in England, the Central Institute of Hygiene in Zagreb, Yugoslavia, and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in the USA indicate that, except for the agglutination tests for H antigen, there is little or no demonstrable difference in the potency of the two Yugoslav vaccines in either active immunization tests or passive protection tests.Although only a relatively small number of assays were carried out using the intracerebral route of challenge, the results indicate that there is no advantage in this method over the more usual intraperitoneal route. Since there was a difference between the potency of the vaccines in the field trails, it must be concluded that the mouse is not a suitable animal for typhoid assay or that the proper way of testing the mouse has not yet been found. The great variation in detail in nominally identical tests made in different laboratories and the differences in the results emphasizes the essential importance of at least one common assay, identical in detail between collaborating laboratories, in a study of this kind.
与现场试验结果相比，在奥西耶克进行现场试验所使用的南斯拉夫伤寒疫苗的实验室检测结果令人失望。在英国李斯特研究所、南斯拉夫萨格勒布中央卫生研究所和美国沃尔特·里德陆军研究所进行的测试表明，除了H抗原的凝集试验外，两种南斯拉夫疫苗在主动免疫试验或被动保护试验中的效力几乎没有或没有明显差异。虽然仅使用脑内攻击途径进行了相对较少数量的检测，但结果表明，这种方法并不比更常用的腹腔途径有优势。由于现场试验中疫苗效力存在差异，必须得出结论，小鼠不是用于伤寒检测的合适动物，或者尚未找到检测小鼠的正确方法。不同实验室进行的名义上相同的试验在细节上存在很大差异，结果也不同，这强调了在这类研究中至少有一个合作实验室之间细节完全相同的共同检测的至关重要性。
