摘要
作者等在间日疟流行区的四川筠连县四方村对ＱＢＣ（Ｑｕａｎｔｉｔａｔｉｖｅｂｕｆｆｙｃｏａｔ）法与姬姆萨厚血片染色法进行了现场应用诊断间日疟的对比研究。血液标本来自１６１名自愿供血的村民，其中男性８３名，女性７８名，年龄自必月至７８岁。从指尖或耳垂刺取血液３００μｌ。用１０μｌ血均匀涂成直径１２ｍｍ的圆形厚血膜，常规处理染色。将５５ｕｌ血吸人ＱＢＣ管，接操作规程离心备用。对每一厚血片均检查３００视野（１０００×油浸镜），对每－ＱＢＣ管均观察５分钟（６００×油浸镜），如尚未发现原虫，即停止观察，并判断该标本为阴性。用秒表准确记录各法查见原虫的最快时间，同时记录各期原虫在ＱＢＣ管内的分布位置。结果发现，用姬姆萨厚片法查出带虫者３４例，阴性１２７例，用ＱＢＣ法查出带虫者３２例，阴性１２９例。以姬姆萨厚片法为标准，计算ＱＢＣ法的敏感性及特异性分别为７９．４１％及９６．０６％，符合率为９２．５５％。ＱＢＣ法的阳性预期值及阴性预期值分别为８４．３６％及９４．５７％。姬姆萨厚片查见原虫的最快时间范围为１秒至３０分钟，中数为１０分钟。ＱＢＣ法查见原虫的最快时间为２秒至４分１５秒，中数为１分７秒。ＱＢＣ管经离心后。
The QBC technique in diagnosing vivax malaria was compared with that of the Giemsa stained thick smear under field conditions in Sifang Village, Junlian County, Sichuan Province, China. Blood samples were collected from 161 volunteer villagers. Each sample was examined with both the QBC and Giemsa techniques.Each stained Giemsa thick smear(GTS) was prepared by spreading 10μl blood over an appropriate area on a slide and examined for 300 oil immersion fields, and each QBC tube was observed for 5 min. before considering a sample to be negative. Results showed that 34 blood samples were positive for vivax malaria and 127 were negative by GTS,whereas, there were 32 positives and 129 negatives by QBC.Taking GTS as standard, the sensitivity and specficity of the QBC technique were 79.41% and 96.06% respectively, and the concordance was 92.55%.contributions of different developmental stages of P. vivax parasites in the centrifuged QBC tubed were observed and recorded, and the results revealed that all stages except schizonts,could be found in the lower part of the platelet zone, or the interphase between the monocyte and the platelet layers,especially the ring forms.
出处
《实用寄生虫病杂志》
1995年第1期16-21,共6页
Journal of Practical Parasitic Diseases
基金
UNDP/World Bank/WHO/TDR提供基金
关键词
间日疟
诊断
QBC技术
荧光染色法
现场评价
Vivax malaria
rapid diagnosis
QBC technique
fluorochrome stain
field evaluation
