Hartmann Katrin, Griessmayr Pascale, Schulz Bianka, Greene Craig E, Vidyashankar Anand N, Jarrett Os, Egberink Herman F
Clinic for Small Animal Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Veterinaerstrasse 13, 80539 Munich, Germany.
J Feline Med Surg. 2007 Dec;9(6):439-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jfms.2007.04.003. Epub 2007 Jul 2.
Many new diagnostic in-house tests for identification of feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) and feline leukaemia virus (FeLV) infection have been licensed for use in veterinary practice, and the question of the relative merits of these kits has prompted comparative studies. This study was designed to define the strengths and weaknesses of seven FIV and eight FeLV tests that are commercially available. In this study, 536 serum samples from randomly selected cats were tested. Those samples reacting FIV-positive in at least one of the tests were confirmed by Western blot, and those reacting FeLV-positive were confirmed by virus isolation. In addition, a random selection of samples testing negative in all test systems was re-tested by Western blot (100 samples) and by virus isolation (81 samples). Specificity, sensitivity, positive and negative predictive values of each test and the quality of the results were compared.
许多用于识别猫免疫缺陷病毒(FIV)和猫白血病病毒(FeLV)感染的新型内部诊断测试已获许可用于兽医实践,这些检测试剂盒相对优点的问题引发了比较研究。本研究旨在确定七种市售FIV检测和八种市售FeLV检测的优缺点。在本研究中,对随机选取的536份猫血清样本进行了检测。那些在至少一项检测中呈FIV阳性反应的样本通过蛋白质印迹法进行确认,而那些呈FeLV阳性反应的样本通过病毒分离进行确认。此外,随机选择在所有检测系统中均呈阴性的样本,通过蛋白质印迹法(100份样本)和病毒分离法(81份样本)进行重新检测。比较了每项检测的特异性、敏感性、阳性和阴性预测值以及结果的质量。