Suppr超能文献

用于诊断……的实验室检测

Laboratory Tests for the Diagnosis of .

作者信息

Carroll Karen C, Mizusawa Masako

机构信息

Division of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Missouri, Kansas City, Missouri.

出版信息

Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2020 Mar;33(2):73-81. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-3400476. Epub 2020 Feb 25.

Abstract

(reclassified as " ") is an anaerobic, gram-positive bacterium that causes significant disease through elaboration of two potent toxins in patients whose normal gut microbiota has been altered through antimicrobial or chemotherapeutic agents (dysbiosis). The optimum method of laboratory diagnosis is still somewhat controversial. Recent practice guidelines published by professional societies recommend a two-step approach beginning with a test for glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH), followed by a toxin test and/or a nucleic acid test. Alternatively, in institutions where established clinical algorithms guide testing, a nucleic acid test alone is acceptable. Nucleic acid tests are the methods of choice in approximately 50% of laboratories in the United States. These tests are considered as the most sensitive methods for detection of in stool and are the least specific. Because of the lower specificity with nucleic acid tests, some clinicians believe that toxin enzyme immunoassays are better predictors of disease, despite their known poor performance in certain patient populations. This review will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the currently available test methods for the diagnosis of with a brief mention of some novel assays that are currently in clinical trials.

摘要

(重新分类为“ ”)是一种厌氧革兰氏阳性菌,在正常肠道微生物群因抗菌或化疗药物而改变(生态失调)的患者中,通过产生两种强效毒素引发严重疾病。实验室诊断的最佳方法仍存在一定争议。专业协会近期发布的实践指南推荐采用两步法,首先检测谷氨酸脱氢酶(GDH),随后进行毒素检测和/或核酸检测。或者,在有既定临床算法指导检测的机构中,单独进行核酸检测也是可以接受的。在美国,约50%的实验室将核酸检测作为首选方法。这些检测被认为是粪便中检测该菌最敏感的方法,但特异性最低。由于核酸检测特异性较低,一些临床医生认为毒素酶免疫测定对疾病的预测性更好,尽管其在某些患者群体中的表现已知较差。本综述将讨论目前用于诊断该菌的检测方法的优缺点,并简要提及一些目前正在进行临床试验的新型检测方法。

相似文献

1
Laboratory Tests for the Diagnosis of .用于诊断……的实验室检测
Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2020 Mar;33(2):73-81. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-3400476. Epub 2020 Feb 25.
7
Tests for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: the next generation.艰难梭菌感染诊断检测:下一代。
Anaerobe. 2011 Aug;17(4):170-4. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2011.01.002. Epub 2011 Mar 3.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

4
Diagnostic Guidance for C. difficile Infections.艰难梭菌感染的诊断指南。
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018;1050:27-44. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-72799-8_3.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验