Suppr超能文献

雅培化学发光微粒子免疫分析与 ChIVD 光启动化学发光检测梅毒螺旋体抗体的比较与评价。

Comparison and evaluation of Abbott chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay and ChIVD light-initiated chemiluminescent assay in the detection of Treponema pallidum antibody.

机构信息

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.

Beijing Key Laboratory of Hepatitis C and Immunotherapy for Liver Diseases, Peking University Hepatology Institute, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.

出版信息

J Clin Lab Anal. 2020 Jul;34(7):e23275. doi: 10.1002/jcla.23275. Epub 2020 Mar 4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Laboratory tests play an important role in the diagnosis of syphilis. This study aimed to compare and assess the performance of the Abbott chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) and the ChIVD light-initiated chemiluminescent assay (LICA) in the detection of Treponema pallidum (TP) antibody.

METHODS

A total of 10 498 serum samples were detected with two assays, and the Treponema pallidum particle agglutination assay (TPPA) and recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA) methods were used for confirmation. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the Abbott CMIA and ChIVD LICA were calculated. The coincidence rate between two assays was also evaluated. The causes of false positive and false negative of two assays were studied.

RESULTS

For the Abbott CMIA and ChIVD LICA, the sensitivity was 94.44% and 98.15%, the specificity was 99.89% and 99.81%, the positive predictive value was 93.29% and 88.83%, and the negative predictive value was 99.91% and 99.97%, respectively. The coincidence rate between Abbott CMIA and ChIVD LICA was 99.26%, and κ value was .790. The disease of infertility, hypertensive disease, liver disease, and cancer were the common causes of false positive in both assays, while infertility was also the main reason lead to false negative.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated that the Abbott CMIA and ChIVD LICA generally had high sensitivity and specificity and therefore may be suitable for the detection of TP antibody and screening for syphilis.

摘要

背景

实验室检测在梅毒诊断中发挥着重要作用。本研究旨在比较和评估雅培化学发光微粒子免疫分析(CMIA)和 ChIVD 光引发化学发光测定(LICA)在检测梅毒螺旋体(TP)抗体方面的性能。

方法

采用两种检测方法检测了 10498 份血清样本,并用梅毒螺旋体颗粒凝集试验(TPPA)和重组免疫印迹试验(RIBA)进行确认。计算雅培 CMIA 和 ChIVD LICA 的灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。还评估了两种检测方法的符合率。研究了两种检测方法假阳性和假阴性的原因。

结果

对于雅培 CMIA 和 ChIVD LICA,灵敏度分别为 94.44%和 98.15%,特异性分别为 99.89%和 99.81%,阳性预测值分别为 93.29%和 88.83%,阴性预测值分别为 99.91%和 99.97%。雅培 CMIA 和 ChIVD LICA 的符合率为 99.26%,κ 值为.790。两种检测方法的假阳性常见原因是不孕、高血压病、肝病和癌症,而不孕也是导致假阴性的主要原因。

结论

我们的结果表明,雅培 CMIA 和 ChIVD LICA 通常具有较高的灵敏度和特异性,因此可能适用于检测 TP 抗体和筛查梅毒。

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