住院患者梅毒筛查方法探讨

摘要

目的：比较梅毒螺旋体抗体颗粒凝集试验（TPPA）、梅毒酶联免疫吸附试验（ELISA）、微粒子化学发光免疫法（CMIA）、甲苯胺红不加热血清试验法（TRUST），探讨一种适合临床梅毒筛查的检测方法。方法：对5710例临床患者血清标本分别用 ELISA，CMIA，TRUST 检测，阳性标本再进行 TPPA 确证实验。运用 SPSS17.0统计软件对结果进行统计学分析。结果：ELISA 检测出阳性标本128例，阳性率2.24％，TPPA 复检阳性126例（126/128）；CMIA 检测出阳性标本132例，阳性率2.31％，TPPA 复检阳性126例（126/132）；TRUST 检测出阳性标本38例，阳性率0.66％，TPPA复检阳性37例（37/38）。结论：CMIA，ELISA，TPPA 三种方法阳性检出率比较，差异无统计学意义（P ＞0.05），TRUST与 CMIA，ELISA，TPPA 三种方法阳性检出率比较差异有统计学意义（P ＜0.05）。为了减少漏检，提高诊断率，应联合使用 TRUST 与 CMIA 或 ELISA 两种梅毒血清学试验检测方法。%Objective:To compare the consistency of treponema pallldum panicle agglutination(TPPA),enzyme linked immunosorbent assay(ELISA)and ehemiluminescent micmparticle immunoassav(CMIA),syphilis aniline red unheated serum reagin test(TRUST),to investigate a suitable clinical syphilis screening mode. Methods:All 5 710 serum samples were detec-ted by CMIA,ELISA and TRUST. The positive samples were confirmed by TPPA. Statistical software SPSSl7. 0 was used for statistical analysis. Results:In 5 710 serum samples,128 were positive for ELlSA,the positive rate was 2. 24% ),coincidence rate with TPPA was 126 / 128;132 were positive for CMIA,the positive rate was 2. 31% ,coincidence rate with TPPA was 126 /132;38 were positive for TRUST,the positive rate was 0. 66% ,coincidence rate with TPPA was 37 / 38. Conclusion:The posi-tive rate of CMIA,ELISA,TPPA has no significant difference(P > 0. 05). The positive rate of TRUST and CMIA,ELISA,TPPA was statistically significant(P < 0. 05). In order to reduce the missing,to improve the diagnostic rate,should be combined use of TRUST and CMIA or ELISA two kinds of test for syphilis detection method.