囊性棘球蚴病血清学诊断方法的比较

IF 1.2 3区 农林科学 Q4 PARASITOLOGY Acta Parasitologica Pub Date : 2024-03-29 DOI:10.1007/s11686-024-00840-z
Sidre Erganis, Fakhriddin Sarzhanov, Funda Doğruman Al, Kayhan Cağlar
{"title":"囊性棘球蚴病血清学诊断方法的比较","authors":"Sidre Erganis,&nbsp;Fakhriddin Sarzhanov,&nbsp;Funda Doğruman Al,&nbsp;Kayhan Cağlar","doi":"10.1007/s11686-024-00840-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Cystic echinococcosis (CE) is caused by the larval form of <i>Echinococcus granulosus.</i> Clinical, radiologic, pathologic, and serologic findings should be evaluated together for the diagnosis of CE. The sensitivity and specificity oalf serologic tests may vary depending on the method used. In this study, we aimed to detect IgG antibodies specific to <i>E. granulosus</i> using indirect hemagglutination assay (IHA), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), indirect fluorescent antibodies (IFA) and western blot (WB) tests.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>In our study, the serum samples of 74 patients sent to our laboratory with suspicion of CE were studied using two different commercial IHA tests, ELISA, IFA and WB test. The test results were evaluated along with radiological findings and histopathological examinations, the latter being the gold standard.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Of all the patients, 51 (69%) were female and 23 (31%) were male. There was a statistically significant difference between males and females (χ<sup>2</sup> = 9.7, <i>p</i> = 0.002). Out of 74 patients, positivity rates for Siemens IHA, Fumouze IHA, ELISA, IFA and WB test were positive as 33 (44.6%), 35 (47.3%), 43 (58.1%), 42 (56.7%) and 38 (51.3%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the tests were as follows: 66.67 and 2.31% for Siemens IHA; 70.83% and 96.15% for Fumouze IHA; 85.42%, and 88.46% for ELISA; 83.33% and 88.46% for IFA; 72.92% and 88.46% for WB test.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There were statistically significant differences in between all five methods (<i>p</i> &lt; 0,001). While the tests with the highest specificity was Fumouze IHA, the test with the highest sensitivity was the ELISA test. It was concluded that IHA and ELISA tests were more practical in practice because of their greater applicability.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":6932,"journal":{"name":"Acta Parasitologica","volume":"69 2","pages":"1122 - 1131"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11686-024-00840-z.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Methods in the Serologic Diagnosis of Cystic Echinococcosis\",\"authors\":\"Sidre Erganis,&nbsp;Fakhriddin Sarzhanov,&nbsp;Funda Doğruman Al,&nbsp;Kayhan Cağlar\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11686-024-00840-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Cystic echinococcosis (CE) is caused by the larval form of <i>Echinococcus granulosus.</i> Clinical, radiologic, pathologic, and serologic findings should be evaluated together for the diagnosis of CE. The sensitivity and specificity oalf serologic tests may vary depending on the method used. In this study, we aimed to detect IgG antibodies specific to <i>E. granulosus</i> using indirect hemagglutination assay (IHA), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), indirect fluorescent antibodies (IFA) and western blot (WB) tests.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>In our study, the serum samples of 74 patients sent to our laboratory with suspicion of CE were studied using two different commercial IHA tests, ELISA, IFA and WB test. The test results were evaluated along with radiological findings and histopathological examinations, the latter being the gold standard.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Of all the patients, 51 (69%) were female and 23 (31%) were male. There was a statistically significant difference between males and females (χ<sup>2</sup> = 9.7, <i>p</i> = 0.002). Out of 74 patients, positivity rates for Siemens IHA, Fumouze IHA, ELISA, IFA and WB test were positive as 33 (44.6%), 35 (47.3%), 43 (58.1%), 42 (56.7%) and 38 (51.3%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the tests were as follows: 66.67 and 2.31% for Siemens IHA; 70.83% and 96.15% for Fumouze IHA; 85.42%, and 88.46% for ELISA; 83.33% and 88.46% for IFA; 72.92% and 88.46% for WB test.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There were statistically significant differences in between all five methods (<i>p</i> &lt; 0,001). While the tests with the highest specificity was Fumouze IHA, the test with the highest sensitivity was the ELISA test. It was concluded that IHA and ELISA tests were more practical in practice because of their greater applicability.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6932,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Parasitologica\",\"volume\":\"69 2\",\"pages\":\"1122 - 1131\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11686-024-00840-z.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Parasitologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11686-024-00840-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PARASITOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Parasitologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11686-024-00840-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PARASITOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 囊性棘球蚴病(CE)是由颗粒棘球蚴的幼虫形式引起的。CE 的诊断应综合评估临床、放射学、病理学和血清学结果。血清学检测的灵敏度和特异性会因所用方法的不同而有所差异。在本研究中,我们旨在使用间接血凝试验(IHA)、酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA)、间接荧光抗体(IFA)和免疫印迹(WB)试验检测肉芽肿埃希氏菌特异性 IgG 抗体。检测结果与放射学检查结果和组织病理学检查结果一起进行评估,后者是金标准。男女之间的差异有统计学意义(χ2 = 9.7,P = 0.002)。在 74 名患者中,西门子 IHA、Fumouze IHA、ELISA、IFA 和 WB 检测的阳性率分别为 33(44.6%)、35(47.3%)、43(58.1%)、42(56.7%)和 38(51.3%)。检测的灵敏度和特异性如下:西门子 IHA 为 66.67% 和 2.31%;Fumouze IHA 为 70.83% 和 96.15%;ELISA 为 85.42% 和 88.46%;IFA 为 83.33% 和 88.46%;WB 检验为 72.92% 和 88.46%。特异性最高的检测方法是 Fumouze IHA,灵敏度最高的检测方法是 ELISA。结论是,IHA 和 ELISA 检测法在实践中更实用,因为它们更适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of Methods in the Serologic Diagnosis of Cystic Echinococcosis

Purpose

Cystic echinococcosis (CE) is caused by the larval form of Echinococcus granulosus. Clinical, radiologic, pathologic, and serologic findings should be evaluated together for the diagnosis of CE. The sensitivity and specificity oalf serologic tests may vary depending on the method used. In this study, we aimed to detect IgG antibodies specific to E. granulosus using indirect hemagglutination assay (IHA), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), indirect fluorescent antibodies (IFA) and western blot (WB) tests.

Methods

In our study, the serum samples of 74 patients sent to our laboratory with suspicion of CE were studied using two different commercial IHA tests, ELISA, IFA and WB test. The test results were evaluated along with radiological findings and histopathological examinations, the latter being the gold standard.

Results

Of all the patients, 51 (69%) were female and 23 (31%) were male. There was a statistically significant difference between males and females (χ2 = 9.7, p = 0.002). Out of 74 patients, positivity rates for Siemens IHA, Fumouze IHA, ELISA, IFA and WB test were positive as 33 (44.6%), 35 (47.3%), 43 (58.1%), 42 (56.7%) and 38 (51.3%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the tests were as follows: 66.67 and 2.31% for Siemens IHA; 70.83% and 96.15% for Fumouze IHA; 85.42%, and 88.46% for ELISA; 83.33% and 88.46% for IFA; 72.92% and 88.46% for WB test.

Conclusion

There were statistically significant differences in between all five methods (p < 0,001). While the tests with the highest specificity was Fumouze IHA, the test with the highest sensitivity was the ELISA test. It was concluded that IHA and ELISA tests were more practical in practice because of their greater applicability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Parasitologica
Acta Parasitologica 医学-寄生虫学
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
6.70%
发文量
149
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Parasitologica is an international journal covering the latest advances in the subject. Acta Parasitologica publishes original papers on all aspects of parasitology and host-parasite relationships, including the latest discoveries in biochemical and molecular biology of parasites, their physiology, morphology, taxonomy and ecology, as well as original research papers on immunology, pathology, and epidemiology of parasitic diseases in the context of medical, veterinary and biological sciences. The journal also publishes short research notes, invited review articles, book reviews. The journal was founded in 1953 as "Acta Parasitologica Polonica" by the Polish Parasitological Society and since 1954 has been published by W. Stefanski Institute of Parasitology of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw. Since 1992 in has appeared as Acta Parasitologica in four issues per year.
期刊最新文献
Flies as Carriers of Gastrointestinal Protozoa of Interest in Public Health in the Northeast of Brazil. Retraction Note: The Protective Role of Toll-Like Receptor Agonist Monophosphoryl Lipid A against Vaccinated Murine Schistosomiasis. First Modern Morphological and Molecular Description of Saccocoelium Cephali Larvae Stages (Digenea: Haploporidae) from the Black Sea. Multiple Liver and Jejunal Abscesses Due to Fasciola Flat Worm: An Uncommon Case Report from Iran. Ultrastructural Changes in the Tegument and Tissues of Fasciola hepatica Adults and Their Eggs Due to the Effect of an Ethyl Acetate Extract of Artemisia ludoviciana Nutt. spp Mexicana.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1