检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
机构地区:[1]广东省深圳市第六人民医院检验科,518052
出 处:《中华全科医学》2009年第5期532-532,540,共2页Chinese Journal of General Practice
摘 要:目的探讨传统免疫印迹法(IB)和线性免疫印迹法(LB)检测Sm抗体的结果差异。方法用IB和LB分别测定48例系统性红斑狼疮(SLE)和30例正常人血清中Sm抗体,评价两者的敏感性和特异性。结果IB和LB法检测SLE患者血清中Sm抗体的敏感性分别是47.9%和37.5%;两者的特异性分别是100.0%和96.7%。结论IB法检测SLE患者Sm抗体的敏感性高于LB法(P<0.05);而两者的特异性差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。Objective To study comparatively the difference between immunoblotting(IB) and line-immunoblotting assay(LB) in the determination of Sin antibody. Methods Sera Sm antibody of 48 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus(SLE) and 30 healthy controls was detected by IB and LB, and analyzed respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the assays were evaluated. Results The sensitivity of IB and LB assays were 47.9% and 37.5% respectively. The specificity of IB and LB assays were respectively 100.0% and 96.7%. Conclusion Our research has showed that IB assay is more sensitivily than LB( P 〈 0. 05 ), but the specificity of two assays have no difference( P 〉0.05 ).
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.7