两种甲型流感病毒抗原检测方法的比较  

Comparison of Two Methods for Influenza A Virus Antigen Detection

作　　者：邱海燕[1] 卢文波[2] 覃世榕[2] 周江瑾[1] 朱利华[1] 郑吉善[1] 施丹华[2] 

机构地区：[1]宁波市妇女儿童医院儿科,浙江宁波315012 [2]宁波市妇女儿童医院检验科,浙江宁波315012

出　　处：《中华医院感染学杂志》2010年第18期2890-2891,共2页Chinese Journal of Nosocomiology

摘　　要：目的比较两种甲型流感病毒抗原检测的临床诊断效能。方法分别用免疫渗滤法和胶体金法甲型流感病毒抗原检测试剂盒检测500例流感样患者的鼻咽部拭子,以甲型流感病毒核酸检测结果为标准,评价病毒抗原检测法的临床诊断效能。结果免疫渗滤法与胶体金法检测的灵敏度分别为96.77%和82.26%、特异性分别为90.41%和91.32%,两种方法在甲型流感病毒检测中差异有统计学意义(2χ=4.64,P<0.05)。结论两种甲型流感病毒抗原检测试剂盒均具有较好的临床应用价值,其中免疫渗滤法灵敏度更高,更适合临床诊断,而胶体金法操作更简便快速,适用于较大样本量的筛查或现场检测。OBJECTIVE To compare the diagnostic value of two methods for influenza A virus antigen detection in practical application.METHODS A total of 500 suspected flu patients′ nasopharynx secretions were detected by immuno-enzyme filtration assay and colloidal gold immunochromatography assay,then the clinical diagnostic value of two methods was evaluated by using the virus nucleic acid detection results as the standard.RESULTS The sensitivity of two methods was 96.77% and 82.26%,and the specificity of them was 90.41% and 91.32%,the difference between the two methods for influenza A virus detection was statistically significant（χ2=4.64,P0.05）.CONCLUSION Two methods for influenza A virus antigen detection are both valuable in clinical application.But immuno-enzyme filtration assay is more sensitive than colloidal gold immunochromatography assay,the former is suitable in clinical diagnosis,and the latter is more simple and rapid in detecting the massive specimens or field test.

关 键 词：甲型流感病毒 抗原检测 免疫渗滤 胶体金免疫层析 

分 类 号：R373.13[医药卫生—病原生物学]