单疫苗结核菌素皮肤试验

Richard B. Byrd Lt. Colonel, USAF, MC, F.C.C.P. , Douglas R. Gracey (Captain, USAF, MC) , Daniel C. Campbell Jr. Colonel, USAF, MC, F.C.C.P. , Aurelia A. Knies R.N.
{"title":"单疫苗结核菌素皮肤试验","authors":"Richard B. Byrd Lt. Colonel, USAF, MC, F.C.C.P. ,&nbsp;Douglas R. Gracey (Captain, USAF, MC) ,&nbsp;Daniel C. Campbell Jr. Colonel, USAF, MC, F.C.C.P. ,&nbsp;Aurelia A. Knies R.N.","doi":"10.1378/chest.56.5.447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The Mono-Vacc tuberculin test was evaluated in a group of 1,423 individuals, the standard for comparison being simultaneously administered Mantoux (PPD, 5 TU). In approximately one-half of these individuals, it was compared with the tine tuberculin test as well. The Mono-Vacc test was found to be acceptable for screening patients for tuberculin sensitivity. It was easily applied, highly acceptable to patients, and produced readily measurable induration. False negative reactions occurred in 1.2 percent which is within the intratest variability of the Mantoux test and thus unlikely to be statistically significant. The primary limiting factor was an 8.4 percent incidence of false positive reactions. However, the ease with which this test is applied would appear to more than compensate for the time spent in retesting with the Mantoux those who prove to be false positives. The tine tuberculin test was found to give similar results, but was more difficult to read and was less acceptable to patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11305,"journal":{"name":"Diseases of the chest","volume":"56 5","pages":"Pages 447-449"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1969-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1378/chest.56.5.447","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Mono-Vacc Tuberculin Skin Test\",\"authors\":\"Richard B. Byrd Lt. Colonel, USAF, MC, F.C.C.P. ,&nbsp;Douglas R. Gracey (Captain, USAF, MC) ,&nbsp;Daniel C. Campbell Jr. Colonel, USAF, MC, F.C.C.P. ,&nbsp;Aurelia A. Knies R.N.\",\"doi\":\"10.1378/chest.56.5.447\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The Mono-Vacc tuberculin test was evaluated in a group of 1,423 individuals, the standard for comparison being simultaneously administered Mantoux (PPD, 5 TU). In approximately one-half of these individuals, it was compared with the tine tuberculin test as well. The Mono-Vacc test was found to be acceptable for screening patients for tuberculin sensitivity. It was easily applied, highly acceptable to patients, and produced readily measurable induration. False negative reactions occurred in 1.2 percent which is within the intratest variability of the Mantoux test and thus unlikely to be statistically significant. The primary limiting factor was an 8.4 percent incidence of false positive reactions. However, the ease with which this test is applied would appear to more than compensate for the time spent in retesting with the Mantoux those who prove to be false positives. The tine tuberculin test was found to give similar results, but was more difficult to read and was less acceptable to patients.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11305,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diseases of the chest\",\"volume\":\"56 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 447-449\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1969-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1378/chest.56.5.447\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diseases of the chest\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0096021715343600\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diseases of the chest","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0096021715343600","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在1423个个体中评估单疫苗结核菌素试验,同时给予Mantoux (PPD, 5 TU)作为比较标准。在大约一半的个体中,它也与时间结核菌素试验进行了比较。单疫苗试验被发现是可接受的筛查患者的结核菌素敏感性。它易于应用,患者高度接受,并容易产生可测量的硬结。假阴性反应发生率为1.2%,在Mantoux试验的最小变异范围内,因此不太可能具有统计学意义。主要限制因素是8.4%的假阳性反应发生率。然而,这种测试的简单应用似乎足以弥补用曼图克斯重新测试那些被证明是假阳性的人所花费的时间。发现时间结核菌素试验给出了类似的结果,但更难以阅读,患者接受度较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Mono-Vacc Tuberculin Skin Test

The Mono-Vacc tuberculin test was evaluated in a group of 1,423 individuals, the standard for comparison being simultaneously administered Mantoux (PPD, 5 TU). In approximately one-half of these individuals, it was compared with the tine tuberculin test as well. The Mono-Vacc test was found to be acceptable for screening patients for tuberculin sensitivity. It was easily applied, highly acceptable to patients, and produced readily measurable induration. False negative reactions occurred in 1.2 percent which is within the intratest variability of the Mantoux test and thus unlikely to be statistically significant. The primary limiting factor was an 8.4 percent incidence of false positive reactions. However, the ease with which this test is applied would appear to more than compensate for the time spent in retesting with the Mantoux those who prove to be false positives. The tine tuberculin test was found to give similar results, but was more difficult to read and was less acceptable to patients.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Chronic bronchitis. Pneumomediastinum. Implantable Artificial Lung SUBJECT INDEX AUTHOR INDEX
×
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