Chappel R J, McNaught D J, Bourke J A, Allan G S
J Hyg (Lond). 1978 Jun;80(3):373-84. doi: 10.1017/s0022172400024827.
Results obtained from 1887 sera using three serological tests for bovine brucellosis were compared with a serological classification of sera described as the 'probable infection status'. Sera showing apparent false positive and apparent false negative reactions were identified, and were subjected to supplementary testing as appropriate. The serum agglutination test (SAT) gave 35% apparent false negative reactions and 5% apparent false positives. The complement fixation test (CFT) gave 12% apparent false negative reactions using warm fixation (CFTW) and at least 5% using cold fixation (CFTC). The routine diagnostic system used in Victoria, in which the CFTW is supplemented by the CFTC and the SAT, gave 9% apparent false negative reactions and 2% apparent false positive reactions. The radioimmunoassay gave 1% or 6% apparent false negative reactions, depending on the minimum diagnostic value used. Atypical reactions in the CFT sometimes caused difficulties in diagnosis.
采用三种牛布鲁氏菌病血清学检测方法,对1887份血清的检测结果与血清学分类(即“可能感染状态”)进行了比较。识别出表现出明显假阳性和明显假阴性反应的血清,并酌情进行补充检测。血清凝集试验(SAT)出现35%的明显假阴性反应和5%的明显假阳性反应。补体结合试验(CFT)采用热固定法(CFTW)时有12%的明显假阴性反应,采用冷固定法(CFTC)时至少有5%的明显假阴性反应。维多利亚州使用的常规诊断系统,其中CFTW由CFTC和SAT补充,出现9%的明显假阴性反应和2%的明显假阳性反应。放射免疫测定法根据所使用的最低诊断值,出现1%或6%的明显假阴性反应。CFT中的非典型反应有时会给诊断带来困难。