Wang Shuyun, Liu Xi, Rong Rong, Zhao Hongyan, Zhao Chihong, Pu Dongri, Zhao Na, Jiang Hai, Tian Guozhong, Wang Guiqin, Cui Buyun
Department of Microoganism and Immunity, Shanxi Medial University, Taiyuan 030001, China.
Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2016 Feb;50(2):175-8. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-9624.2016.02.014.
To evaluation the specificity and sensitivity of 5 kinds of serological detection methods about brucellosis.
To investigate in the 4 autonomous banner (Cha You Hou Qi, Right-Wing Central Banner of Kerqin Region, Linxi County and Siziwangqi Banner) of Inner Mongolia autonomous region from January to December, 2013. Accepting criteria: professionals of breeding cattle and sheep, and slaughter,accompanied by Bloom's disease suspected symptoms such as fever, fatigue,arthralgia, ranging in age from 25 to 55 years old. To collect suspected patients venous blood 3-5 ml in the morning, a total of 236 samples were collected. To detect the Brucella antibody by using plate agglutination test (PAT), tiger red plate agglutination test (RBPT), standard test tube agglutination test (SAT), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and immune colloidal gold method (GICA), SAT was taken as a golden standard, analyzed the sensitivity and specificity of RBPT and SAT, ELISA and GICA.
SAT method of positive patients: 136 cases (57.6%). PAT method positive patients: 150 cases (63.6%). RBPT positive patients: 159 cases (67.4%), and 143 patients with ELISA method: positive (60.6%), 147 patients with positive GICA method (62.3%). The detection rate of Brucella antibody positive was different by different testing methods.There was no significant difference (χ(2)=0.52,P=0.264). To take the SAT method as the gold standard, PAT, RBPT, ELISA and GICA method of the sensitivity were 97.7% (133/136), 98.5% (134/136), 94.8% (129/136) and 94.1% (128/136), respectively. The specificity was lower,the rate were 70.0% (70/100), 75.0% (75/100), 86.0% (86/100) and 81.0% (81/100), respectively. The total coincidence rate were 86.0% (203/236), 88.5% (209/236), 91.1% (215/236) and 88.5% (209/236), respectively.
The specificity and sensitivity of ELISA and GICA method is higher in the diagnosis of disease. The two methods are rapid, GICA method can be used on-site testing, large sample test is suitable for using ELISA.
评估5种布鲁氏菌病血清学检测方法的特异性和敏感性。
于2013年1月至12月在内蒙古自治区4个自治旗（察右后旗、科尔沁右翼中旗、林西县和四子王旗）进行调查。纳入标准：从事牛羊养殖及屠宰的专业人员，伴有发热、乏力、关节痛等布鲁氏菌病疑似症状，年龄在25至55岁之间。于早晨采集疑似患者静脉血3 - 5 ml，共采集236份样本。采用平板凝集试验（PAT）、虎红平板凝集试验（RBPT）、标准试管凝集试验（SAT）、酶联免疫吸附测定（ELISA）和免疫胶体金法（GICA）检测布鲁氏菌抗体，以SAT法作为金标准，分析RBPT与SAT、ELISA与GICA的敏感性和特异性。
SAT法检测阳性患者136例（57.6%）。PAT法检测阳性患者150例（63.6%）。RBPT法检测阳性患者159例（67.4%），ELISA法检测阳性患者143例（60.6%），GICA法检测阳性患者147例（62.3%）。不同检测方法对布鲁氏菌抗体的检出率不同。差异无统计学意义（χ(2)=0.52，P = 0.264）。以SAT法作为金标准，PAT、RBPT、ELISA和GICA法的敏感性分别为97.7%（133/136）、98.5%（134/136）、94.8%（129/136）和94.1%（128/136）。特异性较低，分别为70.0%（70/100）、75.0%（75/100）、86.0%（86/100）和81.0%（81/100）。总符合率分别为86.0%（203/236）、88.5%（209/236）、91.1%（215/236）和88.5%（209/236）。
ELISA和GICA法在疾病诊断中特异性和敏感性较高。这两种方法检测速度快，GICA法可进行现场检测，大样本检测适合采用ELISA法。
