Denning C R, Huang N N, Cuasay L R, Shwachman H, Tocci P, Warwick W J, Gibson L E
Pediatrics. 1980 Nov;66(5):752-7.
Directors of cystic fibrosis centers in the United States have noted an increasing number of patients with histories of either false-positive or false-negative sweat tests. These inaccuracies were attributed to the use of rapid test methods which avoided actually weighing the sweat collected. These rapid tests have inherent difficulties which, theoretically at least, could lead to mistaken diagnoses. To evaluate methods of performing the sweat test, the National Cystic Fibrosis Foundation organized a combined study comparing the older Quantitative pilocarpine iontophoretic test (QPIT) method of performing the test with two newer and more rapid methods, the Orion skin electrode, and the Medtherm conductivity apparatus. Five cystic fibrosis centers participated in the study. Although two centers obtained considerably more accurate results with the Orion and the Medtherm than did the other three centers, the combined results of the study indicate that these procedures can be considered to be little more than screening tests.
美国囊性纤维化中心的负责人注意到,有假阳性或假阴性汗液检测史的患者数量在增加。这些不准确结果归因于使用了快速检测方法,这些方法避免了实际称量所收集的汗液。这些快速检测存在内在困难,至少从理论上讲,可能导致错误诊断。为了评估进行汗液检测的方法,美国国家囊性纤维化基金会组织了一项联合研究,将较旧的定量毛果芸香碱离子导入试验(QPIT)方法与两种更新、更快速的方法——奥立龙皮肤电极法和Medtherm传导仪法进行比较。五个囊性纤维化中心参与了这项研究。尽管有两个中心使用奥立龙和Medtherm获得的结果比其他三个中心准确得多,但该研究的综合结果表明,这些检测程序只不过是筛查测试而已。