Suppr超能文献

[四种检测方法的灵敏度对比实验] (原文中缺少具体的检测对象,根据提供内容只能补充完整括号里内容)

[Sensitivity Comparison Experiment of Four Testing Methods for ].

作者信息

Liu Ren-Jie, Chen Yu-Zuo, Tang Zhi-Hui, Fu Li-Fa, Yang Lu, Wang Bao-Ning

机构信息

Microbiology Teaching and Research Center, Department of Pathogenic Biology, West China School of Basic Medical Sciences and Forensic Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.

Tibet Agricultural and Animal Husbandry College, Linzhi 860000, China.

出版信息

Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2022 May;53(3):421-425. doi: 10.12182/20220560504.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To measure with standard microbiology methods the sensitivity of 4 commonly used testing methods for (Hp) and to conduct a comparative study of the correlations and differences across the 4 methods.

METHODS

With the Hp standard strain (SS1) as the reference, colony forming units (CFU) as the units of quantitative analysis for detection performance, and gradient dilution of SS1 suspension as the simulation sample, we measured the sensitivity of 4 Hp testing methods, including bacterial culture, rapid urease test, antigen test, and quantitative fluorescent PCR. CFU values at different concentrations corresponding to the 4 commonly used Hp testing methods were documented and the correlations and differences were analyzed accordingly.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of Hp bacterial culture, rapid urease test, antigen test and quantitative fluorescent PCR was 2.0×10 CFU/mL, 2.0×10 CFU/mL, 2.0×10 CFU/mL, and 2.0×10 CFU/mL, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The testing turnover time and sensitivity of different laboratory methods for Hp testing varied significantly. The quantitative fluorescent PCR and bacterial culture both showed relatively high sensitivity, but bacterial culture has complicated operation procedures and is too time-consuming. The rapid urease test and antigen test both were simple and quick to perform, but showed low sensitivity. For clinical and laboratory testing of Hp, appropriate testing method that can identify the corresponding changes of Hp should be selected according to the actual testing purpose.

摘要

目的

采用标准微生物学方法测定4种常用幽门螺杆菌(Hp)检测方法的灵敏度,并对这4种方法的相关性和差异进行比较研究。

方法

以Hp标准菌株(SS1)为参照,以菌落形成单位(CFU)作为检测性能定量分析的单位,将SS1菌悬液梯度稀释作为模拟样本,测定细菌培养、快速尿素酶试验、抗原检测和荧光定量PCR这4种Hp检测方法的灵敏度。记录4种常用Hp检测方法在不同浓度下对应的CFU值,并据此分析相关性和差异。

结果

Hp细菌培养、快速尿素酶试验、抗原检测和荧光定量PCR的灵敏度分别为2.0×10 CFU/mL、2.0×10 CFU/mL、2.0×10 CFU/mL和2.0×10 CFU/mL。

结论

不同实验室方法检测Hp的周转时间和灵敏度差异显著。荧光定量PCR和细菌培养灵敏度相对较高,但细菌培养操作程序复杂、耗时过长。快速尿素酶试验和抗原检测操作简便快捷,但灵敏度较低。对于Hp的临床及实验室检测,应根据实际检测目的选择能识别Hp相应变化的合适检测方法。

相似文献

8
Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori: what should be the gold standard?幽门螺杆菌的诊断:什么应作为金标准?
World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Sep 28;20(36):12847-59. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i36.12847.

本文引用的文献

10
Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori: what should be the gold standard?幽门螺杆菌的诊断:什么应作为金标准?
World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Sep 28;20(36):12847-59. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i36.12847.

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