Suppr超能文献

疟疾三种诊断技术的比较:快速诊断检测(NOW疟疾检测)、聚合酶链反应(PCR)和显微镜检查。

A comparison of three diagnostic techniques for malaria: a rapid diagnostic test (NOW Malaria), PCR and microscopy.

作者信息

Gatti S, Gramegna M, Bisoffi Z, Raglio A, Gulletta M, Klersy C, Bruno A, Maserati R, Madama S, Scaglia M

机构信息

Laboratory of Parasitology, Virology Service, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Viale Taramelli 5, 27100 Pavia, Italy.

出版信息

Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2007 Apr;101(3):195-204. doi: 10.1179/136485907X156997.

Abstract

Malaria is a common, life-threatening infection in endemic tropical areas and one that presents a diagnostic challenge to laboratories in most non-endemic countries. A rapid and accurate diagnosis is a prerequisite for effective treatment, especially for the potentially fatal cases of Plasmodium falciparum infection. In the present, multi-centre study, the performances of a rapid diagnostic test (NOW) Malaria) and several, commercial, PCR-based assays (AMS61, AMS42, AMS43, AMS4 and AMS45) were compared against the results of microscopical examination of bloodsmears (the current 'gold standard'). The subjects were either non-European immigrants (N=135) or international travellers (N=171). There was good concordance between the results of all the detection methods, with kappa values of >0.8. Although the NOW Malaria rapid test was both sensitive (100%) and specific (100%) in detecting P. falciparum infections, it was less specific (93.1%) and sensitive (90.7%) in identifying the other Plasmodium species. The results from the AMS61 assay, designed to detect any malarial infection, generally parallelled those of the microscopy (kappa = 0.89), giving a specificity of 98.2% and a sensitivity of 91.0%. Although the use of species-specific molecular primers to identify pure infections with P. falciparum and P. vivax gave results that were in good agreement with those of the microscopy, the subjects who had apparently pure infections with P. ovale or P. malariae were always found PCR-negative. Compared with the standard microscopy, both the NOW Malaria test and the PCR-based assays were therefore poor at identifying mixed infections. The NOW Malaria test and the PCR-based assays clearly need to be improved, particularly for the correct identification of infections with Plasmodium spp. other than P. falciparum, including mixed infections. For now, expert microscopy must remain the mainstay of the laboratory diagnosis of malaria.

摘要

疟疾是热带流行地区常见的、危及生命的感染性疾病,在大多数非流行国家,它给实验室带来了诊断挑战。快速准确的诊断是有效治疗的前提,尤其是对于恶性疟原虫感染的潜在致命病例。在本次多中心研究中,将一种快速诊断检测(NOW疟疾检测)和几种基于聚合酶链反应(PCR)的商业检测方法(AMS61、AMS42、AMS43、AMS4和AMS45)的检测结果与血涂片显微镜检查结果(当前的“金标准”)进行了比较。研究对象为非欧洲移民(N = 135)或国际旅行者(N = 171)。所有检测方法的结果之间具有良好的一致性,kappa值>0.8。虽然NOW疟疾快速检测在检测恶性疟原虫感染方面既敏感(100%)又特异(100%),但在识别其他疟原虫种类时特异性较低(93.1%)且敏感性较低(90.7%)。旨在检测任何疟疾感染的AMS61检测结果总体上与显微镜检查结果相似(kappa = 0.89),特异性为98.2%,敏感性为91.0%。虽然使用物种特异性分子引物来鉴定恶性疟原虫和间日疟原虫的纯感染,其结果与显微镜检查结果高度一致,但明显感染卵形疟原虫或三日疟原虫的受试者经PCR检测总是呈阴性。因此,与标准显微镜检查相比,NOW疟疾检测和基于PCR的检测方法在识别混合感染方面表现较差。NOW疟疾检测和基于PCR的检测方法显然需要改进,特别是在正确识别除恶性疟原虫之外的其他疟原虫感染(包括混合感染)方面。目前,专家显微镜检查仍然是疟疾实验室诊断的主要方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验