CLIA和ELISA法检测乙肝HBeAg的比较  

Compare CLIA and ELISA methods for the detection of hepatitis B HBeAg

作　　者：郑定容[1] 黄龙[1] 周伟[1] 

机构地区：[1]深圳市宝安区西乡人民医院检验科,广东深圳518102

出　　处：《热带医学杂志》2013年第10期1233-1235,共3页Journal of Tropical Medicine

摘　　要：目的评价化学发光免疫分析法(CLIA)和酶联免疫吸附法(ELISA)检测乙型肝炎E抗原(HBeAg)的效果。方法CLIA与ELISA法分别检测HBeAg质控品实测浓度及患者血HBeAg浓度,比较两种方法在检测HBeAg实验中的线性,精密度,相关性和回收率。结果在检测HBeAg的精密度实验中,CLIA批内CV为1.92%,批间CV为3.68%;ELISA批内CV为11.74%,批间CV为15.41%;CLIA法精密度优于ELISA。相关性实验中,CLIA(Y)和ELISA(X)的相关性为Y=1.32X+8.23,相关系数R=0.991。CLIA和ELSIA平均回收率分别为98.80%和93.28%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 CLIA具有灵敏度高、标准曲线剂量范围宽、自动化程度高、操作简便等优点,检测结果准确度优于ELISA,CLIA对于乙型肝炎早期预警和快速诊断具有重要意义。Objective To compare chemiluminescence immunoassay （CLIA） and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay （ELISA） for the detection of HBeAg. Methods CLIA and ELISA methods were used to detect serum HBeAg concentration, and CLIA method was used to measured the concentration of control materials. The linearity, precision, correlation and recovery of both methods were compared. Results CLIA was 1.92% intra-assay and inter was 3.68%; ELISA was 11.74% intra-assay and inter was 15.41% between batch. Precision of CLIA method was better than that of ELISA. In the related experiment, the correlation of CLIA （Y） and ELISA （X） was Y=1.32X＋8.23,R=0.991. In the recovery experiment, recovery of CLIA was 98.80%,and ELISA was 93.28%. Conclusions CLIA method is sensitive,with standard curve concentration range, high degree of automation, easy to operate, better than the ELISA method. CLIA is important for hepatitis B early warning and rapid diagnosis.

关 键 词：乙型病毒性肝炎 乙型肝炎E抗原 化学发光免疫分析法 酶联免疫吸附分析法 

分 类 号：R512.62[医药卫生—内科学]