Comparison of six serological methods for diagnosis of brucellosis in clinical application
10.3760/cma.j.cn231583-20190514-00140
- VernacularTitle:布鲁菌病诊断的六种血清学方法比较
- Author:
Jingyao LIU
1
;
Huimei BI
;
Zunrong ZHENG
;
Xun ZHOU
;
Liping HOU
;
Gang WANG
Author Information
1. 黑龙江省农垦总局总医院检验科，哈尔滨 150088
- From:
Chinese Journal of Endemiology
2020;39(11):835-837
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the clinical significance of six serological methods for diagnosis of brucellosis.Methods:Totally 160 cases of brucellosis patients were selected as the case group and 235 cases of health medical examiners were selected as the control group from January to June 2018 in Heilongjiang Agricultural Reclamation Bureau General Hospital. Six methods were used for detection of brucellosis, including Rose Bengal plate agglutination test (RBPT), fluorescence polarization assay (FPA), indirect enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (iELISA), cysteine agglutination test, standard tube agglutination test (SAT), and anti-globulin test (Coomb's). The consistency of the 4 preliminary screening methods (RBPT vs FPA, iELISA, cysteine agglutination test), and 2 diagnosis methods (SAT vs Coomb's) was compared, and the sensitivity, specificity, rates of missed diagnosis and misdiagnosis were analyzed. Results:In the preliminary screening methods, the consistency of RBPT with FPA and iELISA was relatively consistent (Kappa = 0.872, 0.784), and the consistency with cysteine agglutination test was generally consistent (Kappa = 0.543). In the diagnosis methods, the consistency between SAT and Coomb's was relatively consistent (Kappa = 0.861). The sensitivity of FPA, iELISA, cysteine agglutination test and Coomb's was 91.03%, 75.00%, 56.41% and 80.14%, respectively. The specificity was 95.81%, 100.00%, 98.74% and 100.00%, respectively. The rates of missed diagnosis were 8.97%, 25.00%, 43.59% and 19.86%, respectively. The rates of misdiagnosis were 4.19%, 0, 1.26%, and 0, respectively.Conclusions:FPA and iELISA have high sensitivity and specificity, and are suitable for clinical promotion. The combined detection of multiple serological methods will reduce the probability of misdiagnosis and missed diagnosis of brucellosis, thereby improving the diagnostic level of brucellosis.
