妊娠晚期B群链球菌定植快速检测与培养检测的比较

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Yao Song, Qingwen Nie, Yunting Zhuang, Yanxuan Xiao, Ruiyan Bai, Zeshan Lin, Zhijian Wang
{"title":"妊娠晚期B群链球菌定植快速检测与培养检测的比较","authors":"Yao Song, Qingwen Nie, Yunting Zhuang, Yanxuan Xiao, Ruiyan Bai, Zeshan Lin, Zhijian Wang","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to compare the diagnostic performance of colloidal gold immunochromatographic assay (GICA) with culture-based screening for antepartum detection of Group B Streptococcus (GBS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital in South China, performing GBS screening on women at 35-37 weeks of gestation. GICA and direct bacterial culture were separately performed on paired rectovaginal swabs. Decisions about intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) were based on the GBS positive results by either GICA or culture.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The detection rate for GBS colonization was 7.5% (31/414) by the culture and 16.4% (68/414) by the GICA, with significant difference (<i>p</i><0.001). Kappa value between the two methods was 0.516 (<i>p</i><0.001), suggesting moderate concordance. Against the reference standard of direct culture, the GICA showed a sensitivity of 90.3%, specificity of 89.6%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 41.2%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.1%, and accuracy of 89.6%. Among individuals with positive GICA, the culture-positive group was associated with significantly higher proportion of IAP and lower relative risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to the negative group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The GICA demonstrates 90% sensitivity and specificity in detecting maternal GBS colonization compared to culture. This rapid test may be considered as a promising alternative, particularly for emergency labor and large-scale screening in resource-limited settings. However, the clinical overuse of IAP should be concerned.</p>","PeriodicalId":8228,"journal":{"name":"Annals of clinical and laboratory science","volume":"55 3","pages":"409-415"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of a Rapid Test versus Culture for Detecting Group B Streptococcus Colonization in Late Pregnancy.\",\"authors\":\"Yao Song, Qingwen Nie, Yunting Zhuang, Yanxuan Xiao, Ruiyan Bai, Zeshan Lin, Zhijian Wang\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to compare the diagnostic performance of colloidal gold immunochromatographic assay (GICA) with culture-based screening for antepartum detection of Group B Streptococcus (GBS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital in South China, performing GBS screening on women at 35-37 weeks of gestation. GICA and direct bacterial culture were separately performed on paired rectovaginal swabs. Decisions about intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) were based on the GBS positive results by either GICA or culture.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The detection rate for GBS colonization was 7.5% (31/414) by the culture and 16.4% (68/414) by the GICA, with significant difference (<i>p</i><0.001). Kappa value between the two methods was 0.516 (<i>p</i><0.001), suggesting moderate concordance. Against the reference standard of direct culture, the GICA showed a sensitivity of 90.3%, specificity of 89.6%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 41.2%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.1%, and accuracy of 89.6%. Among individuals with positive GICA, the culture-positive group was associated with significantly higher proportion of IAP and lower relative risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to the negative group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The GICA demonstrates 90% sensitivity and specificity in detecting maternal GBS colonization compared to culture. This rapid test may be considered as a promising alternative, particularly for emergency labor and large-scale screening in resource-limited settings. However, the clinical overuse of IAP should be concerned.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8228,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of clinical and laboratory science\",\"volume\":\"55 3\",\"pages\":\"409-415\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of clinical and laboratory science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of clinical and laboratory science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较胶体金免疫层析法(GICA)与培养法筛查产前B族链球菌(GBS)的诊断效果。方法:本前瞻性研究在华南某三级医院进行,对妊娠35-37周的妇女进行GBS筛查。对配对的直肠阴道拭子分别进行GICA和直接细菌培养。产时抗生素预防(IAP)的决定是基于GICA或培养的GBS阳性结果。结果:GICA对母体GBS定殖的检出率分别为7.5%(31/414)和16.4%(68/414),差异有统计学意义(pp结论:GICA检测母体GBS定殖的灵敏度和特异性均高于培养法90%。这种快速测试可能被认为是一种有希望的替代方法,特别是在资源有限的情况下用于紧急分娩和大规模筛查。然而,临床过度使用IAP应引起关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of a Rapid Test versus Culture for Detecting Group B Streptococcus Colonization in Late Pregnancy.

Objective: This study aims to compare the diagnostic performance of colloidal gold immunochromatographic assay (GICA) with culture-based screening for antepartum detection of Group B Streptococcus (GBS).

Methods: This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital in South China, performing GBS screening on women at 35-37 weeks of gestation. GICA and direct bacterial culture were separately performed on paired rectovaginal swabs. Decisions about intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) were based on the GBS positive results by either GICA or culture.

Results: The detection rate for GBS colonization was 7.5% (31/414) by the culture and 16.4% (68/414) by the GICA, with significant difference (p<0.001). Kappa value between the two methods was 0.516 (p<0.001), suggesting moderate concordance. Against the reference standard of direct culture, the GICA showed a sensitivity of 90.3%, specificity of 89.6%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 41.2%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.1%, and accuracy of 89.6%. Among individuals with positive GICA, the culture-positive group was associated with significantly higher proportion of IAP and lower relative risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to the negative group.

Conclusion: The GICA demonstrates 90% sensitivity and specificity in detecting maternal GBS colonization compared to culture. This rapid test may be considered as a promising alternative, particularly for emergency labor and large-scale screening in resource-limited settings. However, the clinical overuse of IAP should be concerned.

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
Annals of clinical and laboratory science
Annals of clinical and laboratory science 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
112
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Annals of Clinical & Laboratory Science welcomes manuscripts that report research in clinical science, including pathology, clinical chemistry, biotechnology, molecular biology, cytogenetics, microbiology, immunology, hematology, transfusion medicine, organ and tissue transplantation, therapeutics, toxicology, and clinical informatics.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信