Adeoye G O, Nga I C
Department of Zoology, University of Lagos, Akoka, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Parasitol Int. 2007 Dec;56(4):308-12. doi: 10.1016/j.parint.2007.06.007. Epub 2007 Jun 30.
The renewed interest in the use of fluorescent microscopy for malaria diagnosis prompted the comparison of Quantitative Buffy Coat technique (QBC) with the old standard Giemsa-stained Thick blood Film (GTF) in Ikeja General Hospital, now Lagos State University Teaching Hospital, in Lagos. Blood samples were collected from 353 patients, each examined with the QBC and GTF techniques. Of these, 68 were positive with GTF, 70 with QBC giving a positive rate of 19.3% and 19.8% respectively. The malaria positive rate was calculated as 19.3% using GTF as the standard. In general, females recorded higher percentages (58.6% and 54.4%) than males (41.4% and 45.6%) among those positive with QBC and GTF respectively. The overall sensitivity rate for QBC was 55.9% and the specificity was 88.8%. The positive and negative predictive values of QBC compared to GTF were 54.3%, 89.4% respectively while the concordance of the two techniques was 82.4%. These values were lower than those reported for QBC in previous studies. The sensitivity of QBC reduced further (33.3%) with samples having low parasite density (<1000 parasites/ul). QBC test was not able to accurately differentiate between different Plasmodium species but with the GTF, 86.7% of the infected individuals had Plasmodium falciparum, 7.5% had P. malariae and only 5.9% had mixed infections. In spite of the speed and simplicity of QBC technique, it cannot be considered an acceptable alternative to GTF under routine clinical laboratory situation. However, its speed and ease of use make it an important new tool for the diagnosis of malaria.
荧光显微镜用于疟疾诊断再次引发关注,促使人们在拉各斯的伊凯贾综合医院(现拉各斯州立大学教学医院)对定量血沉棕黄层技术(QBC)与旧的标准吉姆萨染色厚血膜(GTF)进行比较。从353名患者采集血样,分别用QBC和GTF技术进行检测。其中,GTF检测出68例阳性,QBC检测出70例阳性,阳性率分别为19.3%和19.8%。以GTF为标准计算出疟疾阳性率为19.3%。总体而言,在QBC和GTF检测呈阳性的患者中,女性的比例(分别为58.6%和54.4%)高于男性(分别为41.4%和45.6%)。QBC的总体灵敏度为55.9%,特异性为88.8%。与GTF相比,QBC的阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为54.3%、89.4%,而两种技术的一致性为82.4%。这些数值低于以往研究中报道的QBC数值。对于寄生虫密度低(<1000个寄生虫/微升)的样本,QBC的灵敏度进一步降低(33.3%)。QBC检测无法准确区分不同的疟原虫种类,但通过GTF检测,86.7%的感染者感染的是恶性疟原虫,7.5%感染的是三日疟原虫,只有5.9%为混合感染。尽管QBC技术速度快且操作简单,但在常规临床实验室情况下,它不能被视为GTF的可接受替代方法。然而,其速度和易用性使其成为疟疾诊断的一种重要新工具。