...
首页> 外文期刊>Annals of tropical medicine and parasitology >A comparison of three diagnostic techniques for malaria: a rapid diagnostic test (NOW Malaria), PCR and microscopy.
【24h】

A comparison of three diagnostic techniques for malaria: a rapid diagnostic test (NOW Malaria), PCR and microscopy.

机译:三种疟疾诊断技术的比较:快速诊断测试(NOW疟疾),PCR和显微镜检查。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Malaria is a common, life-threatening infection in endemic tropical areas and one that presents a diagnostic challenge to laboratories in most non-endemic countries. A rapid and accurate diagnosis is a prerequisite for effective treatment, especially for the potentially fatal cases of Plasmodium falciparum infection. In the present, multi-centre study, the performances of a rapid diagnostic test (NOW) Malaria) and several, commercial, PCR-based assays (AMS61, AMS42, AMS43, AMS4 and AMS45) were compared against the results of microscopical examination of bloodsmears (the current 'gold standard'). The subjects were either non-European immigrants (N=135) or international travellers (N=171). There was good concordance between the results of all the detection methods, with kappa values of >0.8. Although the NOW Malaria rapid test was both sensitive (100%) and specific (100%) in detecting P. falciparum infections, it was less specific (93.1%) and sensitive (90.7%) in identifying the other Plasmodium species.The results from the AMS61 assay, designed to detect any malarial infection, generally parallelled those of the microscopy (kappa = 0.89), giving a specificity of 98.2% and a sensitivity of 91.0%. Although the use of species-specific molecular primers to identify pure infections with P. falciparum and P. vivax gave results that were in good agreement with those of the microscopy, the subjects who had apparently pure infections with P. ovale or P. malariae were always found PCR-negative. Compared with the standard microscopy, both the NOW Malaria test and the PCR-based assays were therefore poor at identifying mixed infections. The NOW Malaria test and the PCR-based assays clearly need to be improved, particularly for the correct identification of infections with Plasmodium spp. other than P. falciparum, including mixed infections. For now, expert microscopy must remain the mainstay of the laboratory diagnosis of malaria.
机译:疟疾是热带地方病中一种常见的威胁生命的感染,它对大多数非地方流行国家的实验室提出了诊断挑战。快速准确的诊断是有效治疗的前提,尤其是对于恶性疟原虫感染可能致命的病例。在当前的多中心研究中,将快速诊断测试(NOW)疟疾和几种基于PCR的商业化检测(AMS61,AMS42,AMS43,AMS4和AMS45)的性能与显微镜检查的结果进行了比较。血涂片(当前的“金标准”)。受试者是非欧洲移民(N = 135)或国际旅行者(N = 171)。所有检测方法的结果之间具有良好的一致性,kappa值> 0.8。虽然NOW疟疾快速检测在检测恶性疟原虫感染方面既敏感(100%)又有特异性(100%),但在鉴定其他疟原虫种类时特异性较低(93.1%)和敏感(90.7%)。用于检测任何疟疾感染的AMS61分析通常与显微镜检查平行(kappa = 0.89),特异性为98.2%,灵敏度为91.0%。尽管使用物种特异性分子引物鉴定恶性疟原虫和间日疟原虫的纯净感染所得到的结果与显微镜检查相吻合,但显然是纯种感染了卵圆形疟原虫或疟原虫。总是发现PCR阴性。因此,与标准显微镜相比,NOW疟疾检测和基于PCR的检测在识别混合感染方面均较差。 NOW疟疾检测和基于PCR的检测方法显然需要改进,尤其是为了正确鉴定疟原虫属感染。除恶性疟原虫以外,包括混合感染。目前,专家显微镜必须仍然是疟疾实验室诊断的主要手段。

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