Kowalski R P, Gordon Y J
Eye and Ear Institute of Pittsburgh, Charles T. Campbell Ophthalmic Microbiology Laboratory, PA.
Ophthalmology. 1989 Jul;96(7):1106-9. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(89)32793-x.
Two direct rapid tests to detect adenovirus antigen, enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and immunofiltration (IF) were compared with regard to sensitivity, specificity, ease of interpretation, and technical complexity against 75 adenovirus culture-positive and 35 adenovirus culture-negative conjunctival swab specimens. Enzyme immunoassay and IF were equally sensitive (P = 0.5), with sensitivities of 80.6 and 79.0%, respectively, when swab specimens were collected from patients within 7 days of the onset of clinical symptoms of adenovirus infection. After 7 days of clinical onset, IF (46.2%) was more sensitive (P less than 0.01) than EIA (0.0%), and was able to detect residual antigen in three culture-negative specimens. Enzyme immunoassay and IF were equally specific (100%). Both tests were easy to interpret, but IF was more technically complex and is not yet commercially packaged. Enzyme immunoassay could benefit either an office practice or a central laboratory, whereas IF is better suited for the latter.
针对75份腺病毒培养阳性和35份腺病毒培养阴性的结膜拭子标本,比较了两种检测腺病毒抗原的直接快速检测方法,即酶免疫测定法(EIA)和免疫过滤法(IF)在敏感性、特异性、判读简易程度和技术复杂性方面的差异。当从腺病毒感染临床症状出现7天内的患者采集拭子标本时,酶免疫测定法和免疫过滤法的敏感性相同(P = 0.5),分别为80.6%和79.0%。临床症状出现7天后,免疫过滤法(46.2%)比酶免疫测定法(0.0%)更敏感(P<0.01),并且能够在3份培养阴性的标本中检测到残留抗原。酶免疫测定法和免疫过滤法的特异性相同(均为100%)。两种检测方法都易于判读,但免疫过滤法技术上更为复杂且尚未商业化包装。酶免疫测定法对门诊或中心实验室都有益处,而免疫过滤法更适合后者。