首页> 外文期刊>Influenza and other respiratory viruses. >Serological diagnosis of avian influenza in poultry: is the haemagglutination inhibition test really the ‘gold standard’?
【24h】

Serological diagnosis of avian influenza in poultry: is the haemagglutination inhibition test really the ‘gold standard’?

机译:禽流感的血清学诊断:血凝抑制试验真的是“黄金标准”吗?

获取原文
       

摘要

AbstractBackground  The serological diagnosis of avian influenza (AI) can be performed using different methods, yet the haemagglutination inhibition (HI) test is considered the ‘gold standard’ for AI antibody subtyping. Although alternative diagnostic assays have been developed, in most cases, their accuracy has been evaluated in comparison with HI test results, whose performance for poultry has not been properly evaluated.Objective  The objective of this study was to estimate the diagnostic sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of the HI test and six other diagnostic assays for the detection of AI antibodies without assuming a gold standard.Methods  We applied a Bayesian version of latent class analysis to compare the results of multiple tests from different study settings reported in the literature.Results  The results showed that the HI test has nearly perfect accuracy (i.e. 98·8% sensitivity and 99·5% specificity). It performed well in both chickens and turkeys and yet was less accurate in experimentally infected poultry, compared to naturally infected. Blocking ELISA and the indirect immunofluorescence assay also performed very well.Conclusions  Given its very high Se and Sp, the HI test may be effectively considered a gold standard. In the framework of LPAI surveillance, where large numbers of samples have to be processed, the blocking ELISA could be a valid alternative to the HI test, in that it is almost as sensitive and specific as the HI test yet quicker and easier to automate.
机译:摘要背景禽流感(AI)的血清学诊断可以使用不同的方法进行,但血凝抑制(HI)测试被视为AI抗体亚型的“黄金标准”。尽管已经开发出替代性诊断检测方法,但在大多数情况下,它们的准确性已与HI检测结果进行了比较,而HI检测结果并未正确评估其对家禽的性能。目的本研究的目的是评估诊断敏感性(Se)和HI测试的特异性(Sp)和其他六种用于诊断AI抗体的诊断分析方法,无需采用金标准。方法我们应用了贝叶斯版本的潜在类别分析来比较文献中报道的来自不同研究背景的多次测试的结果结果结果表明,HI检测具有近乎完美的准确度(即98·8%的灵敏度和99·5%的特异性)。与自然感染的鸡相比,它在鸡和火鸡中均表现良好,但在实验感染的家禽中准确性较差。封闭式ELISA和间接免疫荧光检测也表现出色。结论鉴于硒和硒的含量很高,HI测试可被视为黄金标准。在必须处理大量样品的LPAI监测框架中,封闭ELISA可以替代HI检测,因为它几乎与HI检测一样灵敏和特异,但更快,更容易自动化。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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