These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Comparative analysis five kinds of serological detection methods about Brucella].
    Author: Wang S, Liu X, Rong R, Zhao H, Zhao C, Pu D, Zhao N, Jiang H, Tian G, Wang G, Cui B.
    Journal: Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2016 Feb; 50(2):175-8. PubMed ID: 26926728.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluation the specificity and sensitivity of 5 kinds of serological detection methods about brucellosis. METHODS: To investigate in the 4 autonomous banner (Cha You Hou Qi, Right-Wing Central Banner of Kerqin Region, Linxi County and Siziwangqi Banner) of Inner Mongolia autonomous region from January to December, 2013. Accepting criteria: professionals of breeding cattle and sheep, and slaughter,accompanied by Bloom's disease suspected symptoms such as fever, fatigue,arthralgia, ranging in age from 25 to 55 years old. To collect suspected patients venous blood 3-5 ml in the morning, a total of 236 samples were collected. To detect the Brucella antibody by using plate agglutination test (PAT), tiger red plate agglutination test (RBPT), standard test tube agglutination test (SAT), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and immune colloidal gold method (GICA), SAT was taken as a golden standard, analyzed the sensitivity and specificity of RBPT and SAT, ELISA and GICA. RESULTS: SAT method of positive patients: 136 cases (57.6%). PAT method positive patients: 150 cases (63.6%). RBPT positive patients: 159 cases (67.4%), and 143 patients with ELISA method: positive (60.6%), 147 patients with positive GICA method (62.3%). The detection rate of Brucella antibody positive was different by different testing methods.There was no significant difference (χ(2)=0.52,P=0.264). To take the SAT method as the gold standard, PAT, RBPT, ELISA and GICA method of the sensitivity were 97.7% (133/136), 98.5% (134/136), 94.8% (129/136) and 94.1% (128/136), respectively. The specificity was lower,the rate were 70.0% (70/100), 75.0% (75/100), 86.0% (86/100) and 81.0% (81/100), respectively. The total coincidence rate were 86.0% (203/236), 88.5% (209/236), 91.1% (215/236) and 88.5% (209/236), respectively. CONCLUSION: The specificity and sensitivity of ELISA and GICA method is higher in the diagnosis of disease. The two methods are rapid, GICA method can be used on-site testing, large sample test is suitable for using ELISA.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]