Laboratory of Microbiology and Immunology, UR12SP34, Teaching Hospital Farhat Hached, Sousse, Tunisia.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013 Jul;76(3):306-8. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2013.03.023. Epub 2013 Apr 28.
The objective of the study is to compare the performance of conventional fluorescence microscopy (CFM) and light-emitting diode (LED) fluorescence microscopy (FM) for detection of acid-fast bacilli (AFB) in clinical samples. We included AFB smears, stained using the auramine O method and blindly examined with both CFM and LED-FM. Culture results were used as reference for evaluating the reliability of the FM. We included 180 culture positive specimens and an equal number of culture negative specimens. Sensitivities for the CFM and LED-FM were 79.4% and 82.2%, respectively. Both microscopes had a high specificity (97.2%). The negative-positive (>1 cross) inter-reader agreement of LED-FM and CFM was excellent. Therefore, detection of scanty AFB was higher with LED-FM. Both microscopes were equivalent with respect to time required to read smears. Although it was not faster than CFM, the higher detection of scanty AFB smears combined with ease of use supports the consideration of LED microscopy by all tuberculosis diagnostic laboratories, as a replacement for conventional fluorescence microscopes.
本研究旨在比较传统荧光显微镜(CFM)和发光二极管(LED)荧光显微镜(FM)在检测临床样本中的抗酸杆菌(AFB)方面的性能。我们纳入了使用金胺 O 法染色的 AFB 涂片,并分别用 CFM 和 LED-FM 进行盲检。培养结果被用作评估 FM 可靠性的参考。我们纳入了 180 份培养阳性标本和数量相等的培养阴性标本。CFM 和 LED-FM 的灵敏度分别为 79.4%和 82.2%。两种显微镜的特异性均很高(97.2%)。LED-FM 和 CFM 的阴性-阳性(>1 个交叉)读者间一致性极好。因此,LED-FM 检测到的稀少 AFB 更多。两种显微镜在读取涂片所需的时间上相当。虽然它不比 CFM 快,但更高的稀少 AFB 涂片检测率加上易于使用,支持所有结核病诊断实验室考虑使用 LED 显微镜来替代传统荧光显微镜。