摘要
目的:评价快速无痛过敏皮试仪做皮试的准确性。方法:在同一个患者身上使用同一批号的青霉素类或头孢类药物,同时作传统的针刺皮试和皮试仪皮试,以比较2种皮试法的假阳性结果差异。结果:273例患者中,2种皮试方法均阳性者18例,2种方法均阴性者210例,传统皮试法假阳性,皮试仪皮试法阴性者40例,传统皮试法阴性,皮试仪皮试法阳性者5例。结论:快速无痛过敏皮试对青霉素类和头孢类药物的假阳性率明显低于针刺皮试,快速过敏皮试准确、无痛、省时、高效。
Objective： To evaluate the accuracy of quick pain-free skin tester. Methods： Use same batch number of cephalosporins or penicillins on a person, at the same time do traditional skin test and improved pain-free test on the same person to compare the difference of the two methods. Results：Among the result of skin test on 273 patients, 18 patient are positive in both methods, 210 patients are negative in both,40 patients got false positive in traditional skin test but negative in improved test, 5 patients got neaative in the traditional skin test while positive in improved test. Conclusion： The false positive rate of traditional skin test was significantly higher than that of skin-test apparatus, the latter is more accurate, painless, time-saver and efficient.
出处
《医学理论与实践》
2009年第5期525-527,共3页
The Journal of Medical Theory and Practice
关键词
无痛皮试
针刺皮试
假阳性
Painless skin test, Nneedling skin test, False positive
