心磷脂抗原法测定两种梅毒抗体的比较。

NIPH annals Pub Date : 1991-06-01

P A Jenum, T Ott

{"title":"心磷脂抗原法测定两种梅毒抗体的比较。","authors":"P A Jenum, T Ott","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two different antisyphilis screening tests based on cardiolipin antigen, the VDRL test and an RPR test (Sysmic, Diagast), were compared. A total of 2155 sera were examined by both tests. Positive results were confirmed with TPHA and TPI tests. RPR Sysmic test was as sensitive and specific as the VDRL. However, the RPR Sysmic test was easier and quicker, especially when the number of sera tested was high.","PeriodicalId":76239,"journal":{"name":"NIPH annals","volume":"14 1","pages":"3-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1991-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of two syphilis antibody assays based on cardiolipin antigen.\",\"authors\":\"P A Jenum, T Ott\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Two different antisyphilis screening tests based on cardiolipin antigen, the VDRL test and an RPR test (Sysmic, Diagast), were compared. A total of 2155 sera were examined by both tests. Positive results were confirmed with TPHA and TPI tests. RPR Sysmic test was as sensitive and specific as the VDRL. However, the RPR Sysmic test was easier and quicker, especially when the number of sera tested was high.\",\"PeriodicalId\":76239,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NIPH annals\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"3-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1991-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NIPH annals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NIPH annals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

比较了两种不同的基于心磷脂抗原的抗梅毒筛查试验，VDRL试验和RPR试验(Sysmic, Diagast)。两种方法共检测了2155份血清。TPHA和TPI试验结果均为阳性。RPR系统试验具有与VDRL相同的敏感性和特异性。然而，RPR系统测试更容易和快速，特别是当测试的血清数量高时。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

本刊更多论文

Comparison of two syphilis antibody assays based on cardiolipin antigen.

Two different antisyphilis screening tests based on cardiolipin antigen, the VDRL test and an RPR test (Sysmic, Diagast), were compared. A total of 2155 sera were examined by both tests. Positive results were confirmed with TPHA and TPI tests. RPR Sysmic test was as sensitive and specific as the VDRL. However, the RPR Sysmic test was easier and quicker, especially when the number of sera tested was high.

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

NIPH annals

自引率

0.00%

发文量