两种新型免疫分析法准确检测人粪便标本中幽门螺杆菌抗原。

European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology Pub Date : 2019-05-28 eCollection Date: 2019-06-03 DOI:10.1556/1886.2019.00008
Ralf Ignatius, Christiane Berg, Chris Weiland, Angela Darmer, Thilo Wenzel, Marion Lorenz, Jörg Fuhrmann, Michael Müller
{"title":"两种新型免疫分析法准确检测人粪便标本中幽门螺杆菌抗原。","authors":"Ralf Ignatius,&nbsp;Christiane Berg,&nbsp;Chris Weiland,&nbsp;Angela Darmer,&nbsp;Thilo Wenzel,&nbsp;Marion Lorenz,&nbsp;Jörg Fuhrmann,&nbsp;Michael Müller","doi":"10.1556/1886.2019.00008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Stool antigen tests are recommended for the diagnosis of <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> infection. Here, we compared two novel assays, i.e., one enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and one immunochromatography assay (ICA), with a chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) that had previously been compared with rapid urease test, histology, and urea breath test. Two hundred sixty-six frozen stool samples with defined CLIA results (42 positives, 219 negatives, and 5 samples with borderline results) collected between January and May 2018 were thawed and immediately tested by EIA, ICA, and CLIA. In 248 samples with repeatedly positive/negative CLIA results, EIA and ICA were positive for 40 and 37 of 41 CLIA-positive samples and yielded negative results for 206 and 201 of 207 CLIA-negative samples, respectively. There was a high positive percent agreement (EIA, 97.6%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 86.3-100%; ICA, 90.2%; 95% CI, 76.9-96.7%), as well as a negative percent agreement between the assays (EIA, 99.5%; 95% CI, 97.0-100%; ICA, 97.1%; 95% CI, 93.7-98.8%). This was further supported by kappa values indicating very good agreement (CLIA vs. EIA, 0.971; CLIA vs. ICA, 0.857). In conclusion, both EIA and ICA comprise valuable assays for the detection of <i>H. pylori</i> antigen in stool samples.</p>","PeriodicalId":11929,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology","volume":"9 2","pages":"29-31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1556/1886.2019.00008","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accurate Detection of <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> Antigen in Human Stool Specimens by Two Novel Immunoassays.\",\"authors\":\"Ralf Ignatius,&nbsp;Christiane Berg,&nbsp;Chris Weiland,&nbsp;Angela Darmer,&nbsp;Thilo Wenzel,&nbsp;Marion Lorenz,&nbsp;Jörg Fuhrmann,&nbsp;Michael Müller\",\"doi\":\"10.1556/1886.2019.00008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Stool antigen tests are recommended for the diagnosis of <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> infection. Here, we compared two novel assays, i.e., one enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and one immunochromatography assay (ICA), with a chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) that had previously been compared with rapid urease test, histology, and urea breath test. Two hundred sixty-six frozen stool samples with defined CLIA results (42 positives, 219 negatives, and 5 samples with borderline results) collected between January and May 2018 were thawed and immediately tested by EIA, ICA, and CLIA. In 248 samples with repeatedly positive/negative CLIA results, EIA and ICA were positive for 40 and 37 of 41 CLIA-positive samples and yielded negative results for 206 and 201 of 207 CLIA-negative samples, respectively. There was a high positive percent agreement (EIA, 97.6%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 86.3-100%; ICA, 90.2%; 95% CI, 76.9-96.7%), as well as a negative percent agreement between the assays (EIA, 99.5%; 95% CI, 97.0-100%; ICA, 97.1%; 95% CI, 93.7-98.8%). This was further supported by kappa values indicating very good agreement (CLIA vs. EIA, 0.971; CLIA vs. ICA, 0.857). In conclusion, both EIA and ICA comprise valuable assays for the detection of <i>H. pylori</i> antigen in stool samples.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology\",\"volume\":\"9 2\",\"pages\":\"29-31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1556/1886.2019.00008\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1556/1886.2019.00008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/6/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1556/1886.2019.00008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/6/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

大便抗原试验被推荐用于诊断幽门螺杆菌感染。在这里,我们比较了两种新的测定方法,即一种酶免疫测定法(EIA)和一种免疫层析测定法(ICA),化学发光免疫测定法(CLIA),之前已与快速脲酶试验、组织学和尿素呼吸试验进行了比较。2018年1月至5月期间收集的266份具有明确CLIA结果的冷冻粪便样本(42例阳性,219例阴性,5例边缘性结果)被解冻并立即通过EIA, ICA和CLIA进行检测。在248份CLIA反复阳性/阴性样本中,41份CLIA阳性样本中,EIA和ICA分别为40份和37份,207份CLIA阴性样本中,EIA和ICA分别为206份和201份。有很高的正确率(EIA, 97.6%;95%置信区间(95% CI), 86.3-100%;ICA, 90.2%;95% CI, 76.9-96.7%),两种检测方法之间的一致性为负(EIA, 99.5%;95% ci, 97.0-100%;ICA, 97.1%;95% ci, 93.7-98.8%)。kappa值进一步支持了这一点,表明一致性非常好(CLIA vs. EIA, 0.971;CLIA vs. ICA, 0.857)。总之,EIA和ICA都是检测粪便样品中幽门螺杆菌抗原的有价值的检测方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accurate Detection of Helicobacter pylori Antigen in Human Stool Specimens by Two Novel Immunoassays.

Stool antigen tests are recommended for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection. Here, we compared two novel assays, i.e., one enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and one immunochromatography assay (ICA), with a chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) that had previously been compared with rapid urease test, histology, and urea breath test. Two hundred sixty-six frozen stool samples with defined CLIA results (42 positives, 219 negatives, and 5 samples with borderline results) collected between January and May 2018 were thawed and immediately tested by EIA, ICA, and CLIA. In 248 samples with repeatedly positive/negative CLIA results, EIA and ICA were positive for 40 and 37 of 41 CLIA-positive samples and yielded negative results for 206 and 201 of 207 CLIA-negative samples, respectively. There was a high positive percent agreement (EIA, 97.6%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 86.3-100%; ICA, 90.2%; 95% CI, 76.9-96.7%), as well as a negative percent agreement between the assays (EIA, 99.5%; 95% CI, 97.0-100%; ICA, 97.1%; 95% CI, 93.7-98.8%). This was further supported by kappa values indicating very good agreement (CLIA vs. EIA, 0.971; CLIA vs. ICA, 0.857). In conclusion, both EIA and ICA comprise valuable assays for the detection of H. pylori antigen in stool samples.

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
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信