不同的诊断方法对腺病毒诊断的敏感性和准确性分析  

Sensitivity and accuracy analysis of different diagnostic methods for adenovirus diagnosis

作　　者：胡强 晋乐飞 Hu Qiang;Jin Lefei(School of Public Health,Zhengzhou University,Zhengzhou,Henan 450001)

机构地区：[1]郑州大学公共卫生学院,河南郑州450001

出　　处：《智慧健康》2025年第1期88-91,共4页Smart Healthcare

摘　　要：目的 研究不同的诊断方法对腺病毒诊断的敏感性和准确性。方法 选取2022年1月—2023年12月到本市某院接受诊治的110例疑似腺病毒感染患者,均行直接免疫荧光法(DFA)与间接免疫荧光法(IFA)诊断,比较两种诊断方式的检查结果与诊断效能。结果 临床诊断结果显示,阳性患者为84例,阴性患者为26例;DFA诊断结果显示,阳性患者为68例,阴性患者为42例;IFA诊断结果显示,阳性患者为80例,阴性患者为30例;DFA诊断的敏感度、特异度、准确率、阳性预测值及阴性预测值均明显低于IFA诊断(P<0.05)。结论 采用IFA诊断腺病毒的敏感性与准确性较好,能够有效避免漏诊误诊。Objective To investigate the sensitivity and accuracy of different diagnostic methods for adenovirus diagnosis.Methods 110 suspected adenovirus infected patients who received treatment at our hospital from January 2022 to December 2023 were selected and diagnosed using direct immunofluorescence (DFA) and indirect immunofluorescence (IFA) methods.The results and diagnostic efficacy of the two diagnostic methods were compared.Results Clinical diagnosis results showed that there were 84 positive patients and 26 negative patients;The diagnostic results of DFA showed that there were 68 positive patients and 42 negative patients;The IFA diagnosis results showed that there were 80 positive patients and 30 negative patients;The sensitivity,specificity,accuracy,positive predictive value,and negative predictive value of DFA diagnosis were significantly lower than those of IFA diagnosis (P<0.05).Conclusion The sensitivity and accuracy of using IFA for diagnosing adenovirus are good,which can effectively avoid misdiagnosis and missed diagnosis.

关 键 词：直接免疫荧光法 间接免疫荧光法 腺病毒 敏感性 准确性 

分 类 号：R73[医药卫生—肿瘤]