| 陈冬梅,贾立平,张又,钱渊,邓莉,贾莉英,高燕.医院内诺如病毒感染的三种病原学检测方法应用比较[J].中华流行病学杂志,2007,28(3):218-221 |
| 医院内诺如病毒感染的三种病原学检测方法应用比较 |
| Comparison of methods for Norovims detection in st∞l specimens colIected from hospitalized patientswith hospital acquired diallrhea |
| 收稿日期:2007-01-25 出版日期:2014-09-18 |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 诺如病毒 医院内感染 暴发 酶免疫吸附 |
| 英文关键词: Norovirus Hospital—acquired infection 0utbreaks Enzyme immunoassay |
| 基金项目:国家自然科学基金资助项目(30270067) |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 3796 |
| 全文下载次数: 1286 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的找到一种简便易行的检测感染性腹泻粪便标本中诺如病毒的方法。方法用两种酶免疫吸附试剂盒检测北京地区婴幼儿腹泻和综合医院内成人感染性腹泻粪便标本中的诺如病毒，并用逆转录一聚合酶链反应(RT—PcR)作对照，评价这两种试剂盒。用两种试剂盒分别检测69份儿科病房标本和来自3家综合医院15份成人医院内感染性腹泻的粪便标本中诺如病毒；其中5份儿科病房和15份成人病房的粪便标本还同时进行了RT—PCR检测。结果84份粪便标本中，试剂盒甲的诺如病毒检出率为20.2%(17/84)，试剂盒乙的诺如病毒检出率为36.9%(31/84)；两种试剂盒的符合率为73.8%(62/84)，但试剂盒乙的检出率显著高于试剂盒甲(P<0.01)。在应用了RT—PCR检测的20份标本中，阳性率为55.0%(1l/20)。试剂盒甲与RT—PcR检测结果相比，检出率明显低于RTPCR(P<0.05)，试剂盒乙与RT—PCR检测结果相比，检出率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。3家综合医院的成人标本中，每家医院都有2份或2份以上送检标本诺如病毒检测阳性，结合临床诊断可判定为诺如病毒医院内感染暴发。结论酶免疫吸附方法检测诺如病毒感染简便易行、利于推广，试剂盒乙可以替代RT—PcR方法应用于临床。3家综合医院都存在诺如病毒医院内感染的暴发。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| 0bjective In order to find out a more convenient，rapid and efficient way in detecting human Norovirus infections in specimens collected from hospitalized patients with acute non—bacterialdiarrhea in Beijing. Methods Two kits for enzyme immunoassay(EIA) were used to detect human Noroviruses in st∞l specimens coUected from 69 infants and young children as well as 15 adults who were all diagnosed as acute non—bacterial diarrhea in 4 different hospitals. Reverse transcription—polymerase chain reaction(RT—PCR)was performed to evaluate the data from two kits in this study.Data were statistically analvzed bv SPSS l 1.5 Software.X2test was used’to test catego“cal va“ables.ResuIts Out of 84 st00l specimens coUected from infants and young children or adults with acute non—bacterial diarrhea， 17 (20.2%)were Norovirus positive determined by EIA kit A and 3 l(36.9%)were Norovirus positive deternlined by EIA kit B.X2test used to test categorical variables showed signi“cant differences(P< 0.0 1)，suggesting that the EIA kit B was superior to the EIA kit A.Among these 84 st∞l specimens，20 were tested by RT—PCR simultaneouslv.Out of those 20 specimens，1 1(55.0%)were Norovirus positive as determined by RT—PCR，which was higher than that fronl 2 EIA kits.Results from 10(50.O%) samples detected by EIA kit A were consistent with those detected by RT—PCR. Through Y2 test，the categorical va“ables showed significant differences with P<0.05，suggesting that RT—PCR was superior to the EIA kit A. Results fmm 14(70.O%)Samples detected by EIA kit B were consistent with t}10se detected by RT—PCR while)(2 test showed that the differences were not significant(P>0.05)，among categorical va“ables suggesting that EIA kit B was as sensitive as RT—PCR in detecting Norovirus.There were hospital acquired diarrhea outbreaks in these three hospitals since at least 2 Norovirus positive specimens were detected in each of the hospitals.Conclusion To detect human Norovinlses infection，ElA seemed to be more convenient and time saving than RT～PCR which had been used worldwide.The EIA kit B in this study was comparable to RT—PCR for detecting Norovirus in st00l specimens. Noro“rus was a pathogen causing hospital acquired diarrhea outbreaks in these three hospitals. |
|
查看全文
Html全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
| 关闭 |
