Cutler S J, Wright D J, Luckhurst V H
Department of Medical Microbiology, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK.
FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 1993 Apr;6(4):281-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.1993.tb00340.x.
Interpretation of immunoblot results for Lyme borreliosis remains an area of controversy. This study was undertaken to devise a simple method which incorporated distinctions between specific and non-specific bands. A numerical value was assigned to bands reflecting their relative importance. This scheme was evaluated with sera from 61 forestry workers, which were previously tested by immunoblotting and interpreted subjectively. These results were reported as five separate categories representing levels of reactivity. A total of 72% (44) of sera fell into the same categories as they were originally reported. The method was also assessed with 40 sera routinely submitted for Lyme borreliosis serology. These were interpreted by two members of staff without previous experience of immunoblotting. Their results gave 80% and 72.5% agreement with those of an experienced person used to reading immunoblots for Lyme borreliosis.
莱姆病疏螺旋体免疫印迹结果的解读仍是一个存在争议的领域。本研究旨在设计一种简单的方法,该方法能区分特异性条带和非特异性条带。给反映各条带相对重要性的条带赋予一个数值。用61名林业工人的血清对该方案进行评估,这些血清之前已通过免疫印迹法检测并进行主观解读。这些结果被报告为代表反应水平的五个不同类别。共有72%(44份)血清与最初报告的类别相同。该方法还用40份常规提交用于莱姆病血清学检测的血清进行了评估。由两名此前没有免疫印迹经验的工作人员对这些血清进行解读。他们的结果与一位有经验的莱姆病免疫印迹阅读者的结果一致性分别为80%和72.5%。