孙丽, 张诗海. 两种检测系统检测血清淀粉样蛋白A的结果比较[J]. 蚌埠医科大学学报, 2020, 45(6): 812-814. DOI: 10.13898/j.cnki.issn.1000-2200.2020.06.030
    引用本文: 孙丽, 张诗海. 两种检测系统检测血清淀粉样蛋白A的结果比较[J]. 蚌埠医科大学学报, 2020, 45(6): 812-814. DOI: 10.13898/j.cnki.issn.1000-2200.2020.06.030
    SUN Li, ZHANG Shi-hai. Effect comparison of two methods in the detection of serum amyloid A protein[J]. Journal of Bengbu Medical University, 2020, 45(6): 812-814. DOI: 10.13898/j.cnki.issn.1000-2200.2020.06.030
    Citation: SUN Li, ZHANG Shi-hai. Effect comparison of two methods in the detection of serum amyloid A protein[J]. Journal of Bengbu Medical University, 2020, 45(6): 812-814. DOI: 10.13898/j.cnki.issn.1000-2200.2020.06.030

    两种检测系统检测血清淀粉样蛋白A的结果比较

    Effect comparison of two methods in the detection of serum amyloid A protein

    • 摘要:
      目的比较免疫速率散射比浊法和免疫荧光层析法检测血清淀粉样蛋白A(serum amyloid A protein,SAA)的结果。
      方法收集住院病人(观察组)和健康体检者(对照组)血清,均分别采用全自动特定蛋白检测仪(采用免疫速率散射比浊法)和荧光免疫定量分析仪(免疫荧光层析法)检测SAA水平,比较2种检测系统上的分析结果。
      结果观察组血清用2种方法检测的SAA水平均高于对照组(P < 0.01);观察组免疫速率散射比浊法所测SAA值高于免疫荧光层析法(P < 0.01),而对照组采用2种方法所测SAA值差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。免疫速率散射比浊法和免疫荧光层析法检测的敏感度分别为53.00%和57.00%,特异度分别为92.00%和93.00%,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。荧光免疫层析法对健康体检者所测SAA的下限概率为83.00%(83/100),高于免疫速率散射比浊法的42.00%(42/100)(χ2=35.86,P < 0.01),荧光免疫层析法检测低值时候更稳定。
      结论免疫速率散射比浊法和免疫荧光层析均能用于临床检测,后者的稳定性更好。

       

      Abstract:
      ObjectiveTo compare the effects between immunovelocity nephelometry and immunofluorescence chromatography in the detection of serum amyloid protein A(SAA).
      MethodsThe serum levels of SAA of inhospital patients(observation group) and healthy physical examinees(control group) were detected using the full-automatic specific protein detector(immunovelocity nephelometry) and fluorescence immunoquantitative analyzer (immunofluorescence chromatography), and the detection results were compared between two methods.
      ResultsThe serum levels of SAA deetcted by two methods in observation grop were higher than those in control group(P < 0.01).The serum level of SAA in observation group detected by immunovelocity nephelometry was higher than that of immunofluorescence chromatography(P < 0.01), while the difference of the serum level of SAA in control group was not statistically significant between two detection methods(P>0.05).The sensitivities and specificities of immunovelocity nephelometry and immunofluorescence chromatography were 53.00% & 57.00% and 92.00% & 93.00%, respectively, and the differences of those were not statistically significant between two methods(P>0.05).The lower limit probability of SAA detected by fluorescence immunochromatography in control group(83.00%, 83/100) was higher that of immunovelocity nephelometry(42.00%, 42/100) (χ2=35.86, P < 0.01).The fluorescence immunochromatography in the detection of low value was more stable.
      ConclusionsThe immunovelocity nephelometry and immunofluorescence chromatography can be used for clinical detection, the latter has better stability.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回