首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Clinical Microbiology >Comparison of Performance and Cost-Effectiveness of Direct Fluorescent-Antibody Ligase Chain Reaction and PCR Assays for Verification of Chlamydial Enzyme Immunoassay Results for Populations with a Low to Moderate Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis Infection
【2h】

Comparison of Performance and Cost-Effectiveness of Direct Fluorescent-Antibody Ligase Chain Reaction and PCR Assays for Verification of Chlamydial Enzyme Immunoassay Results for Populations with a Low to Moderate Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis Infection

机译:直接荧光抗体连接酶链反应和PCR检测沙眼衣原体感染人群中衣原体酶免疫测定结果的性能和成本效益比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Many laboratories use a commercial enzyme immunoassay (EIA) with verification testing to diagnose Chlamydia trachomatis infections in an effort to contain costs. This study was designed to compare the performance and cost-effectiveness of direct fluorescent-antibody assay (DFA), commercial PCR, and ligase chain reaction (LCR) for the verification of EIA results. Cervical specimens were screened by EIA. DFA, PCR, and LCR were compared as verification tests for EIA-reactive specimens and negative greyzone (NGZ) specimens at 50% below the cutoff value. These samples were also tested by in-house PCR, which was used in the analysis of verification results. A total of 477 (7%) of 6,571 samples were reactive or within the NGZ. EIA results with verification by DFA testing (EIA/DFA results) agreed with 93% of the true results compared with 97% for EIA/PCR results for one set of 242 samples; there was 97% agreement with true results for EIA/DFA results versus 95% for EIA/LCR results for another set of 235 samples. Ten samples were false positive by LCR. Time and costs were equivalent for EIA with the DFA, PCR, or LCR as the verification test but were two- to threefold greater for PCR or LCR alone than for EIA with verification. Since it is important to balance cost containment with public health objectives, DFA, PCR, and LCR as EIA verification tests for cervical samples offer acceptable sensitivities and specificities at reasonable cost for low- to moderate-risk populations and therefore can be extended to a broader spectrum of at-risk populations.
机译:许多实验室使用商业酶免疫测定(EIA)和验证测试来诊断沙眼衣原体感染,以控制成本。本研究旨在比较直接荧光抗体测定(DFA),商业PCR和连接酶链反应(LCR)的性能和成本效益,以验证EIA结果。通过EIA筛选宫颈标本。比较DFA,PCR和LCR作为EIA反应性标本和阴性临界区(NGZ)标本(低于临界值50%)的验证测试。这些样品还通过内部PCR进行了测试,该PCR用于分析验证结果。总共657个样本中有477个(7%)是反应性的或处于NGZ内部。经DFA测试验证的EIA结果(EIA / DFA结果)同意真实结果的93%,而一组242个样品的EIA / PCR结果为97%; EIA / DFA结果与真实结果的一致性为97%,而另一组235个样品的EIA / LCR结果为95%。通过LCR,十个样品为假阳性。使用DFA,PCR或LCR作为验证测试​​的EIA的时间和成本是相同的,但是单独使用PCR或LCR进行验证的EIA的时间和成本要比使用验证的EIA的时间和成本大两到三倍。由于在成本控制与公共卫生目标之间取得平衡非常重要,因此DFA,PCR和LCR可以作为宫颈样品的EIA验证测试,以合理的成本为中低风险人群提供可接受的敏感性和特异性,因此可以扩展到更广泛的范围高危人群

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号