C反应蛋白采用免疫透射比浊法和干式免疫荧光法检测的结果对比

Comparison on the Results of C-Reactive Protein Detected by Immunity Transmission Turbidity and Dry Immunofluorescence

目的探讨免疫透射比浊法和干式免疫荧光法检测C反应蛋白的结果差异。方法选取我院感染性疾病患者60例作为观察组,另外选择我院同期健康体检的人群60例作为对照组,采用免疫透射比浊法对两组研究对象的血清标本C反应蛋白进行检测,采用免疫荧光分析仪器及其试剂检测两组研究对象的全血标本C反应蛋白。观察和比较两组研究对象的两种方法的C反应蛋白阳性率和检测结果。结果与对照组对比,观察组两种方法检测C反应蛋白的阳性率明显更高,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05),但组内两种方法检测C反应蛋白的阳性率无明显差异(P>0.05)。与对照组对比,观察组两种方法检测C反应蛋白的检出数量明显更多,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05),但组内两种方法检测C反应蛋白的检出数量无明显差异(P>0.05)。结论免疫透射比浊法和干式免疫荧光法检测C反应蛋白的结果无明显差异,两种检测方法均具有较高的应用价值,可予以推广。

Objective To investigate the difference of C-reactive protein level detected by immunity transmission turbidity and dry immunofluorescence. Methods 60 patients with infection diseases （observation group） in our hospital and 60 cases of healthy person （control group） were selected as research objects. Immunity transmission turbidity was used to detect the C-reactive protein level of serum samples, and the dry immunofluorescence was used to detect the C-reactive protein level of whole blood samples. The positive rates and levels of C-reactive protein of two groups detected by two methods were compared. Results The positive rates of C-reactive protein detected by two methods of observation group were significantly higher than those of control group （P 〈0.05）, while the intra-group comparison between two methods showed no statistical difference in both groups （P〉0.05）. The levels of C-reactive protein detected by two methods of observation group were significantly higher than those of control group （P 〈0.05）, while the intra-group comparison between two methods showed no statistical difference in both groups （P〉0.05）. Conclusions The levels of C-reaction protein detected by immunity transmission turbidity and dry immunofluorescence show no significant difference, suggesting that both methods have high application value.