两种用于快速检测A群链球菌的酶联免疫吸附测定试验的评估

Evaluation of two ELISA tests for the rapid detection of group A streptococci.

作者信息

Egger P, Siegrist C A, Strautmann G, Belli D, Auckenthaler R

机构信息

Paediatric Clinic, University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.

出版信息

Eur J Pediatr. 1990 Jan;149(4):256-8. doi: 10.1007/BF02106286.

DOI:10.1007/BF02106286

PMID:2406149

Abstract

We examined 579 oropharyngeal swab specimens from children presenting with pharyngitis in order to compare two rapid diagnostic ELISA tests for group A streptococcal antigen: the TestPack Strep A (TPSA), and the Direct Strep A EIA (DSAE), with an anaerobically incubated sheep blood agar culture. The sensitivities of the methods were respectively 60.8% (TPSA) and 64.4% (DSAE), the specificities 98.3% (TPSA) and 93.2% (DSAE), the positive predictive values 88.6% (TPSA) and 70.3% (DSAE) and the negative predictive values 92.0% (TPSA) and 91.2% (DSAE). We conclude that the TPSA is easy to interpret and is sufficiently specific to initiate treatment in patients with a positive test. It is not sufficiently sensitive to ensure negative or intermediate results. The performance of the DSAE test is similar but the specificity is slightly lower and more false positive results occur.

摘要

我们检查了579例患有咽炎儿童的口咽拭子标本，目的是比较两种用于A组链球菌抗原的快速诊断ELISA检测方法：TestPack A群链球菌检测（TPSA）和直接A群链球菌酶免疫分析（DSAE），并与厌氧培养的羊血琼脂培养法进行比较。这些方法的敏感性分别为60.8%（TPSA）和64.4%（DSAE），特异性分别为98.3%（TPSA）和93.2%（DSAE），阳性预测值分别为88.6%（TPSA）和70.3%（DSAE），阴性预测值分别为92.0%（TPSA）和91.2%（DSAE）。我们得出结论，TPSA易于解读，特异性足以在检测结果为阳性的患者中启动治疗。但其敏感性不足以确保阴性或中间结果。DSAE检测的表现类似，但特异性略低，出现的假阳性结果更多。