目的 比较快速血浆反应素试验(rapid plasma reagin, RPR)、胶体金试验(colloidal gold test for syphilis, SYP)、酶联免疫吸附试验(enzyme-linked immuno sorbent assay, ELISA)、凝集法(treponema pallidum particle assay, TPPA)诊断儿童梅毒的灵敏度及特异性。方法 选择本院120例确诊为梅毒的患儿及60例非梅毒患儿进行RPR、SYP、ELISA、TPPA实验, 统计4种方法 检测梅毒的阳性率、灵敏度、特异性及阳性预测值。结果 ELISA阳性率为94.2%、阳性预测值为95.8%、特异性为95.0%, RPR阳性率为43.3%, SYP灵敏度为66.7%。TPPA灵敏度、特异性及阳性预测率均不高。结论 ELISA的阳性预测值及特异性较高, 适合住院、门诊儿童的梅毒筛查, SYP可作为阳性标本的确认试验, 必要时可采用联合试验进行检测。建议对儿童梅毒检测, 不采用TPPA。
Abstract
Objective To study the sensitivity and specificity of rapid plasma reagin test (RPR), colloidal gold test for syphilis(SYP), and enzyme-linked immune sorbent assay (ELISA), treponema pallidum particle assay (TPPA) test in diagnosis of syphilis in children. Methods 120 children with suspected syphilis were recruited in this hospital, and were divided into newborn group (60 cases) and infant group (60 cases) by age and other 60 children without syphilis were recruited.The RPR, SYP, ELISA, TPPA were conducted. By the statistical methods, syphilis positive rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value were counted. Results The positive rate of enzyme-linked immune method was 94.2%.The positive predictive value of enzyme-linked immune sovbent assay was 95.8% and specificity was 95.0%.The positive rate of rapid plasma reagin test was 43.3%. The sensitivity of colloidal gold method was 66.7%. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive rate of TPPA were not high.Conclusions The positive predictive value and specificity of ELISA is high, and it is suitable for the diagnosis of syphilis in children.Colloidal gold method can be used for other screening positive specimens after confirmation and its joint testing can be used for testing if necessary. TPPA is not recommended for use in children for syphilis test.
关键词
快速血浆反应素试验 /
胶体金试验 /
酶联免疫吸附试验 /
凝集法 /
儿童梅毒
Key words
rapid plasma reagin test /
colloidal gold test for syphilis /
enzyme-linked immune sorbent assay, syphilis antibody detection /
treponema pallidum particle assay /
children syphilis
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 王静霞, 王洛平.儿童梅毒血清学检测方法学评价[J].中华微生物学和免疫学杂志, 2013, 10(7):530-530.
[2] 宋贤响, 田礼军, 邹华新, 等.4种实验室检测方法对儿童梅毒的临床诊断价值分析[J].中国医药导报, 2014, 11(5):89-92.
[3] 方 峰.早期先天性梅毒诊断和鉴别诊断[J].实用儿科临床杂志, 2006, 21(22):1525-1526.
[4] 梁 铭, 林有坤, 梁 伶, 等.南宁地区性病患者家庭儿童感染情况的分析[C].第四届中国西部地区皮肤性病学术研讨会论文集, 2006, 184-186.
[5] 陈小琳.我国梅毒的流行现况与特征[J].暨南大学学报(自然科学与医学版), 1999, 20(2):29-46.
[6] 钱伊弘, 顾 昕, 陆海空, 等.儿童获得性梅毒14例分析[J].中华皮肤科杂志, 2011, 44(12):865-866.
[7] 张 健, 陆 峰, 何 敏, 等.新生儿梅毒29例临床研究[J].医学理论与实践, 2013, (18):2402-2417.
[8] 诸 岩, 徐子刚, 张立新, 等.58例早期先天梅毒患儿的临床分析[J].北京医学, 2013, 35(9):771-773.
[9] 闻亚浓.余姚市48例梅毒感染孕产妇所生儿童随访管理现状分析[J].基层医学论坛, 2014, 14(16):2156-2158.
[10] 彭 枫, 杨 宏.对新生儿先天性梅毒进行产前与产后干预效果的分析[J].中国性科学, 2013, 22(7):33-36.