首页> 外文OA文献 >Is Serological Testing a Reliable Tool in Laboratory Diagnosis of Syphilis? Meta-Analysis of Eight External Quality Control Surveys Performed by the German Infection Serology Proficiency Testing Program
【2h】

Is Serological Testing a Reliable Tool in Laboratory Diagnosis of Syphilis? Meta-Analysis of Eight External Quality Control Surveys Performed by the German Infection Serology Proficiency Testing Program

机译:血清学检测是否是梅毒实验室诊断的可靠工具?由德国感染血清学能力测试计划进行的八项外部质量控制调查的荟萃分析

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

The accuracy of diagnostic tests is critical for successful control of epidemic outbreaks of syphilis. The reliability of syphilis serology in the nonspecialist laboratory has always been questioned, but actual data dealing with this issue are sparse. Here, the results of eight proficiency testing sentinel surveys for diagnostic laboratories in Germany between 2000 and 2003 were analyzed. Screening tests such as Treponema pallidum hemagglutination assay (mean accuracy, 91.4% [qualitative], 75.4% [quantitative]), Treponema pallidum particle agglutination assay (mean accuracy, 98.1% [qualitative], 82.9% [quantitative]), and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) (mean qualitative accuracy, 95%) were more reliable than Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) testing (mean accuracy, 89.6% [qualitative], 71.1% [quantitative]), the fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption test (FTA-ABS) (mean accuracy, 88% [qualitative], 65.8% [quantitative]), and immunoblot assays (mean qualitative accuracy, 87.3%). Clearly, immunoglobulin M (IgM) tests were more difficult to manage than IgG tests. False-negative results for samples that have been unambiguously determined to be IgM and anti-lipoid antibody positive accounted for 4.7% of results in the IgM ELISA, 6.9% in the VDRL test, 18.5% in the IgM FTA-ABS, and 23.0% in the IgM immunoblot assay. For negative samples, the mean percentage of false-positive results was 4.1% in the VDRL test, 5.4% in the IgM ELISA, 0.7% in the IgM FTA-ABS, and 1.4% in the IgM immunoblot assay. On average, 18.3% of participants misclassified samples from patients with active syphilis as past infection without indicating the need for further treatment. Moreover, 10.2% of laboratories wrongly reported serological evidence for active infection in samples from patients with past syphilis or in sera from seronegative blood donors. Consequently, the continuous participation of laboratories in proficiency testing and further standardization of tests is strongly recommended to achieve better quality of syphilis serology.
机译:诊断测试的准确性对成功控制梅毒的流行至关重要。非专科实验室中梅毒血清学的可靠性一直受到质疑,但处理该问题的实际数据很少。在此,对2000年至2003年间德国诊断实验室进行的八项能力验证前哨调查的结果进行了分析。筛选测试,例如梅毒螺旋体血凝试验(平均准确度:91.4%[定性],75.4%[定量]),梅毒螺旋体颗粒凝集试验(平均准确度,98.1%[定性],82.9%[定量])和酶-连锁免疫吸附测定(ELISAs)(平均定性准确度为95%)比性病研究实验室(VDRL)测试(平均准确度为89.6%[定性],71.1%[定量]),荧光性肾小球抗体吸收测试( FTA-ABS)(平均准确度为88%[定性],65.8%[定量])和免疫印迹测定法(平均定性为87.3%)。显然,免疫球蛋白M(IgM)测试比IgG测试更难管理。明确确定为IgM和抗脂质抗体阳性的样品的假阴性结果占IgM ELISA结果的4.7%,VDRL测试结果的6.9%,IgM FTA-ABS结果的18.5%和23.0%在IgM免疫印迹测定中。对于阴性样品,在VDRL测试中假阳性结果的平均百分比为4.1%,在IgM ELISA中为5.4%,在IgM FTA-ABS中为0.7%,在IgM免疫印迹测定中为1.4%。平均而言,有18.3%的参与者将活动性梅毒患者的样本误分类为既往感染,而未表明需要进一步治疗。此外,有10.2%的实验室错误地报告了过去梅毒患者样本或血清阴性献血者血清中发生主动感染的血清学证据。因此,强烈建议实验室持续参与能力验证和进一步标准化测试,以实现更高的梅毒血清学质量。

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