...
首页> 外文期刊>Parasitology International >Comparison of Quantitative Buffy Coat technique (QBC) with Giemsa-stained Thick Film (GTF) for diagnosis of malaria
【24h】

Comparison of Quantitative Buffy Coat technique (QBC) with Giemsa-stained Thick Film (GTF) for diagnosis of malaria

机译:定量Buffy外套技术(QBC)与Giemsa染色厚膜(GTF)诊断疟疾的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The renewed interest in the use of fluorescent microscopy for malaria diagnosis prompted the comparison of Quantitative Buffy Coat technique (QBC) with the old standard Giemsa-stained Thick blood Film (GTF) in Ikeja General Hospital, now Lagos State University Teaching Hospital, in Lagos. Blood samples were collected from 353 patients, each examined with the QBC and GTF techniques. Of these, 68 were positive with GTF, 70 with QBC giving a positive rate of 19.3% and 19.8% respectively. The malaria positive rate was calculated as 19.3% using GTF as the standard. In general, females recorded higher percentages (58.6% and 54.4%) than males (41.4% and 45.6%) among those positive with QBC and GTF respectively. The overall sensitivity rate for QBC was 55.9% and the specificity was 88.8%. The positive and negative predictive values of QBC compared to GTF were 54.3%, 89.4% respectively while the concordance of the two techniques was 82.4%. These values were lower than those reported for QBC in previous studies. The sensitivity of QBC reduced further (33.3%) with samples having low parasite density (<1000 parasites/ul). QBC test was not able to accurately differentiate between different Plasmodium species but with the GTF, 86.7% of the infected individuals had Plasmodium falciparum, 7.5% had P. malariae and only 5.9% had mixed infections. In spite of the speed and simplicity of QBC technique, it cannot be considered an acceptable alternative to GTF under routine clinical laboratory situation. However, its speed and ease of use make it an important new tool for the diagnosis of malaria.
机译:对使用荧光显微镜进行疟疾诊断的重新兴趣促使定量布菲外套技术(QBC)与旧标准的吉姆萨染色的厚血膜(GTF)在宜家总医院(现为拉各斯州立大学教学医院)进行比较。从353例患者中采集血液样本,每例患者均使用QBC和GTF技术进行检查。其中,GTF阳性68例,QBC阳性70例,阳性率分别为19.3%和19.8%。以GTF为标准,疟疾阳性率计算为19.3%。总体而言,在QBC和GTF阳性的女性中,女性的百分比(58.6%和54.4%)高于男性(41.4%和45.6%)。 QBC的总体敏感性率为55.9%,特异性为88.8%。与GTF相比,QBC的阳性和阴性预测值分别为54.3%,89.4%,而两种技术的一致性为82.4%。这些值低于先前研究中报告的QBC值。对于低寄生虫密度(<1000寄生虫/ ul)的样品,QBC的灵敏度进一步降低(33.3%)。 QBC测试无法准确区分不同的疟原虫种类,但使用GTF,受感染的个体中有86.7%患有恶性疟原虫,有7.5%的疟原虫存在,只有5.9%的有混合感染。尽管QBC技术的速度和简便性,在常规临床实验室情况下,仍不能认为它是GTF的可接受替代方案。但是,它的速度和易用性使其成为诊断疟疾的重要新工具。

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