• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

将威达艰难梭菌毒素A检测法和普瑞米尔艰难梭菌毒素A检测法与细胞毒素B组织培养检测法进行比较,以检测艰难梭菌毒素。

Comparison of vidas Clostridium difficile toxin-A assay and premier C. difficile toxin-A assay to cytotoxin-B tissue culture assay for the detection of toxins of C. difficile.

作者信息

Knapp C C, Sandin R L, Hall G S, Ludwig M D, Rutherford I, Washington J A

机构信息

Department of Microbiology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, OH 44195.

出版信息

Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1993 Jul;17(1):7-12. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(93)90062-c.

DOI:10.1016/0732-8893(93)90062-c
PMID:8359010
Abstract

Damage to the intestinal mucosa by Clostridium difficile (CD) is toxin mediated. Two enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for toxin-A detection, the automated Vitek immunodiagnostic assay system CDA (Vidas CDA), and the Premier toxin A (Premier) were tested for their ability to detect toxin A in 301 stool samples and compared with an in-house tissue culture assay for toxin B (TCA). Of these 301 samples, 49 were TCA positive and 252 were TCA negative. Agreement between Vidas CDA and TCA on the initial run was 85% (255 of 301) and increased to 94% (278 of 296) when discordant samples were retested from available frozen specimens. Corresponding levels of agreement for Premier were 91% (272 of 301) and 98% (284 of 288), respectively. If tissue culture positivity at any titer was used as the sole criterion for positivity of the specimen, agreement with positive TCA before and after repeat testing was 57% (26 of 49) and 74% (34 of 46) for Vidas CDA and 65% (32 of 49) and 95% (36 of 38) for Premier. Agreement with negative TCA titers was good: 90% for Vidas CDA and 95% for Premier, and 98% for Vidas CDA and 99% for Premier after repeat testing. Predictive values positive and negative after repeat testing were, respectively, 88% and 96% for Vidas CDA, and 95% and 99% for Premier. Results for the automated and manual EIA methods for detection of C. difficile toxin A were obtained in 2.5 h as compared with 36-48 h for tissue culture.

摘要

艰难梭菌(CD)对肠道黏膜的损伤是由毒素介导的。对两种用于检测毒素A的酶免疫测定法(EIA),即自动化的Vitek免疫诊断测定系统CDA(Vidas CDA)和普瑞米尔毒素A检测法(Premier),检测301份粪便样本中毒素A的能力进行了测试,并与内部毒素B组织培养测定法(TCA)进行了比较。在这301份样本中,49份TCA呈阳性,252份TCA呈阴性。Vidas CDA与TCA初次检测的一致性为85%(301份中的255份),当从可用的冷冻样本中对不一致的样本进行重新检测时,一致性提高到94%(296份中的278份)。Premier的相应一致性水平分别为91%(301份中的272份)和98%(288份中的284份)。如果将任何滴度下的组织培养阳性作为样本阳性的唯一标准,Vidas CDA在重复检测前后与阳性TCA的一致性分别为57%(49份中的26份)和74%(46份中的34份),Premier为65%(49份中的32份)和95%(38份中的36份)。与阴性TCA滴度的一致性良好:Vidas CDA为90%,Premier为95%,重复检测后Vidas CDA为98%,Premier为99%。重复检测后的阳性预测值和阴性预测值,Vidas CDA分别为88%和96%,Premier为95%和99%。检测艰难梭菌毒素A的自动化和手动EIA方法在2.5小时内得出结果,而组织培养则需要36 - 48小时。

相似文献

1
Comparison of vidas Clostridium difficile toxin-A assay and premier C. difficile toxin-A assay to cytotoxin-B tissue culture assay for the detection of toxins of C. difficile.将威达艰难梭菌毒素A检测法和普瑞米尔艰难梭菌毒素A检测法与细胞毒素B组织培养检测法进行比较,以检测艰难梭菌毒素。
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1993 Jul;17(1):7-12. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(93)90062-c.
2
Comparison of VIDAS CDAB and CDA immunoassay for the detection of Clostridium difficile in a tcdA- tcdB+ C. difficile prevalent area.比较 VIDAS CDAB 和 CDA 免疫检测法在 tcdA- tcdB+ 艰难梭菌流行地区检测艰难梭菌的效果。
Anaerobe. 2009 Dec;15(6):266-9. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2009.09.008. Epub 2009 Sep 20.
3
Rapid detection of Clostridium difficile in stool using the VIDASR C. difficile Toxin A II assay.使用VIDASR艰难梭菌毒素A II检测法快速检测粪便中的艰难梭菌。
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2003 Feb;45(2):117-21. doi: 10.1016/s0732-8893(02)00520-5.
4
Comparison of four commercially available rapid enzyme immunoassays with cytotoxin assay for detection of Clostridium difficile toxin(s) from stool specimens.四种市售快速酶免疫测定法与细胞毒素测定法用于检测粪便标本中艰难梭菌毒素的比较。
J Clin Microbiol. 1994 May;32(5):1142-7. doi: 10.1128/jcm.32.5.1142-1147.1994.
5
Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea and colitis: usefulness of Premier Cytoclone A+B enzyme immunoassay for combined detection of stool toxins and toxigenic C. difficile strains.艰难梭菌相关性腹泻和结肠炎的实验室诊断:Premier Cytoclone A+B酶免疫测定法联合检测粪便毒素和产毒艰难梭菌菌株的实用性
J Clin Microbiol. 2001 May;39(5):1996-8. doi: 10.1128/JCM.39.5.1996-1998.2001.
6
[Detection of Clostridium difficile toxin A from stool specimens by an enzyme immunoassay kit].[使用酶免疫分析试剂盒从粪便标本中检测艰难梭菌毒素A]
Kansenshogaku Zasshi. 1999 May;73(5):467-72. doi: 10.11150/kansenshogakuzasshi1970.73.467.
7
Comparison of the VIDAS Clostridium difficile toxin A immunoassay with C. difficile culture and cytotoxin and latex tests.VIDAS艰难梭菌毒素A免疫测定法与艰难梭菌培养法、细胞毒素法及乳胶试验的比较
J Clin Microbiol. 1992 Jul;30(7):1837-40. doi: 10.1128/jcm.30.7.1837-1840.1992.
8
Evaluation of six commercial assays for the rapid detection of Clostridium difficile toxin and/or antigen in stool specimens.六种用于快速检测粪便标本中艰难梭菌毒素和/或抗原的商业检测方法的评估。
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2001 Feb;7(2):55-64. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0691.2001.00141.x.
9
Comparison of the premier toxin A and B assay and the TOX A/B II assay for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.用于艰难梭菌感染诊断的首要毒素A和B检测法与TOX A/B II检测法的比较
Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2008 Mar;15(3):575-8. doi: 10.1128/CVI.00282-07. Epub 2008 Jan 2.
10
[Investigation of toxin genes of Clostridium difficile strains isolated from hospitalized patients with diarrhoea at Marmara University Hospital].[对从马尔马拉大学医院腹泻住院患者中分离出的艰难梭菌菌株毒素基因的研究]
Mikrobiyol Bul. 2011 Jan;45(1):1-10.

引用本文的文献

1
Evaluation of a new enzyme immunoassay for Clostridium difficile toxin A.艰难梭菌毒素A新型酶免疫测定法的评估
J Clin Pathol. 1997 Dec;50(12):996-1000. doi: 10.1136/jcp.50.12.996.