不同检验方法用于梅毒不同时期的敏感性和特异性的临床检验效果对比分析

Sensitivity and specificity of different test methods for the different stages of syphilis

目的:分析并探讨不同检测方法用于梅毒不同时期敏感性和特异性的临床检验效果。方法:选取2014年1月至2016年1月在医院进行检验的梅毒患者160例为观察组,其中一期梅毒患者48例,二期梅毒患者112例;选取同期体检健康的160例为对照组。所有人群均经过酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA)、梅毒螺旋体血球凝集试验(TPHA)和梅毒螺旋体明胶颗粒凝集试验(TPPA)三种方法进行检测,观察对比三种检测方法敏感性和特异性。结果:ELISA检测敏感性为98.8%,特异性为97.5%;TPPA检测敏感性为96.3%,特异性为98.8%;TPHA检测敏感性为90.0%,特异性为97.5%。ELISA与TPPA检测敏感性高于TPHA(P<0.05),三组特异性无显著差异(P>0.05)。结论:临床上TPHA检测梅毒敏感性较差,而ELISA与TPPA检测梅毒的敏感性和特异性均较高,值得临床上使用。

Objectives： To analyze and explore the sensitivity and specificity of different test methods forthe different stages of syphilis. Methods： 160 syphilis patients in our hospital from January 2014 to January 2016 were selected as observation group,including 48 cases of primary syphilis and 112 cases of secondary phase syphilis. 160 health people in the same period were selected as control group. All people underwent enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay（ ELISA）,Treponema pallidum hemagglutination test（ TPHA） and treponema pallidum particle agglutination test（ TPPA）. The sensitivity and specificity of three measurement methods were compared. Results：Sensitivity and specificity of ELISA detection were 98. 8% and 97. 5% respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of TPPA detection were 96. 3% and 98. 8% respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of TPHA detection were 90. 0%and 97. 5% respectively. ELISA and TPPA detector were more sensitive than TPHA（ P〉0. 05）. Specificity of three groups had no significant difference（ P〈0. 05）. Conclusion： Clinically,sensitivity of TPHA syphilis detection is poor,while ELISA and TPPA syphilis detection both have high sensitivity and specificity,which are worth clinical use.