首页> 外文期刊>Practical Laboratory Medicine >Traditional versus reverse syphilis algorithms: A comparison at a large academic medical center
【24h】

Traditional versus reverse syphilis algorithms: A comparison at a large academic medical center

机译:传统梅毒和梅毒反向算法:大型学术医疗中心的比较

获取原文
       

摘要

Objectives An increasing number of institutions are transitioning from the traditional syphilis testing algorithm (initial screening with nontreponemal tests) to the ‘reverse’ algorithm (initial screening with treponemal tests such as syphilis IgG). The aim of this study was to evaluate the switch in syphilis algorithm at an academic medical center with a population with low syphilis prevalence. Design and methods We performed a six-year retrospective study at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, an academic medical center, comparing the traditional algorithm (n=12,612) with the reverse algorithm (n=10,453). False positives were considered to be positive screens with negative confirmatory testing. Results Using the traditional algorithm, 93 samples (0.7% of total) screened positive with RPR, with 40 of these samples having negative TP-PA testing (43% of positive screens, 0.3% of total). Using the reverse algorithm, 110 screened positive with syphilis IgG (1.1% of total), and 33 of these samples had both negative RPR and TP-PA (30% of positive screens, 0.3% of total). In both algorithms, higher RPR titers and syphilis IgG values were associated with increased probability of positive confirmation. Conclusions In this study at an academic medical center, the reverse algorithm had significantly more total positive screens than the traditional algorithm. Both algorithms produced equivalent rates of active infection. The quantitative difference in positives between the two algorithms are the category of patients who are syphilis IgG positive, RPR non-reactive, and TP-PA reactive. Specimens with higher RPR titers and syphilis IgG values are more likely to confirm positive.
机译:目标越来越多的机构正在从传统的梅毒测试算法(非梅毒测试初筛)过渡到“反向”算法(梅毒IgG等梅毒测试初筛)。这项研究的目的是评估梅毒流行率较低的学术医学中心的梅毒算法转换。设计与方法我们在爱荷华大学医院和临床医学中心进行了为期六年的回顾性研究,将传统算法(n = 12,612)与反向算法(n = 10,453)进行了比较。假阳性被认为是阴性验证测试的阳性筛查。结果使用传统算法,有93个样本(占总数的0.7%)通过RPR筛查呈阳性,其中40个样本的TP-PA检测呈阴性(阳性筛查的43%,占筛查的0.3%)。使用反向算法,有110例梅毒IgG阳性筛查(占总数的1.1%),其中33个样本的RPR和TP-PA均为阴性(阳性筛查的占30%,总数的0.3%)。在两种算法中,较高的RPR滴度和梅毒IgG值均与阳性确认的可能性增加相关。结论在一项学术医学中心的研究中,反向算法的总阳性筛查量比传统算法要多得多。两种算法均产生了等效的主动感染率。两种算法之间阳性的定量差异是梅毒IgG阳性,RPR无反应和TP-PA反应的患者类别。 RPR滴度和梅毒IgG值较高的标本更有可能确认阳性。

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