首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Clinical Microbiology >Latex agglutination test for rubella antibodies: report based on data from the College of American Pathologists surveys, 1983 to 1985.
【24h】

Latex agglutination test for rubella antibodies: report based on data from the College of American Pathologists surveys, 1983 to 1985.

机译:风疹抗体的乳胶凝集试验:基于美国病理学家学院(1983年至1985年)调查数据的报告。

获取原文
           

摘要

In the College of American Pathologists (CAP) rubella survey program, 45% of laboratories rely on the latex agglutination (LA) card assay for detecting rubella immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies. By using CAP survey data over a 3-year period, we compared LA results with hemagglutination inhibition (HI) and enzyme immunoassay (EIA) results. EIA indices were used to classify results into three categories: nonimmune, EIA index of 0.300 or less; borderline, EIA index of 0.300 to 0.619; and immune, EIA index of 1.700 or greater. There was 91% or more agreement between LA, HI, and EIA for categories i and iii. In category ii, the response from LA users varied, depending on the level of antibody present in the survey samples; at an EIA index of 0.346, 81% reported nonimmune status, whereas at an EIA index of 0.619, 48% reported nonimmune status. Less than 10% indicated borderline status. In testing of samples in the same category, approximately 40%, using the HI method, reported titers of less than 1:8 (nonimmune status). Among EIA users, 97 to 99% regarded the specimens as nonimmune. On analysis of specimens in the borderline category, the LA test showed a pattern of sensitivity and specificity comparable to that reported with the HI technique, whereas the EIA method showed a greater degree of precision. The LA card assay provides a rapid screening test in which LA is read macroscopically, and the procedure differs considerably from the fully quantitative HI and EIA methods.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
机译:在美国病理学家学院(CAP)风疹调查计划中,45%的实验室依靠乳胶凝集(LA)卡测定法检测风疹免疫球蛋白G(IgG)抗体。通过使用3年期的CAP调查数据,我们将LA结果与血凝抑制(HI)和酶免疫测定(EIA)结果进行了比较。使用EIA指数将结果分为三类:非免疫,0.300或更低的EIA指数;边界线,EIA指数为0.300至0.619;并且免疫,EIA指数为1.700或更高。 LA,HI和EIA之间针对类别i和iii达成了91%或更多的协议。在第二类中,洛杉矶使用者的反应有所不同,这取决于调查样品中存在的抗体水平。在EIA指数为0.346时,有81%报告非免疫状态,而在EIA指数为0.619时,有48%报告为非免疫状态。少于10%表示边界状态。在使用HI方法测试同一类别的样品中,大约40%的滴度小于1:8(非免疫状态)。在EIA使用者中,有97%到99%的人将该标本视为非免疫标本。在对边界类别的标本进行分析时,LA测试显示出与HI技术报告的灵敏度和特异性相当的模式,而EIA方法则显示出更高的精确度。 LA卡测定法提供了一种快速筛选测试,其中可以从宏观上读取LA,并且该程序与完全定量的HI和EIA方法有很大不同。(摘要截断为250个字)

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号