摘要
目的：本文对速率散射比浊法测定血清类风湿因子（RF）和抗链球菌溶血素O（ASO）进行方法学评价。方法：采用速率散射比浊法检测158例患者血清RF含量和96例患者血清ASO含量以及25例健康正常人血清RF和ASO含量，并同时与乳胶凝集法结果对比。结果：批内、批间变异系数RF分别为1.83%和3.82%，ASO分别为2.76%和5.28%。定量检测具有满意的线性响应（RF r =0.987，ASO r =0.995）。免疫比浊法ASO阳性率为16.6%，乳胶法为8.3%，RF比浊法阳性率为24.1%，乳胶法为18.4%，比浊法阳性率明显高于乳胶法。测定25例健康正常人，RF均小于20IU/ml，ASO均值为70.7±55.6IU/ml。结论：本方法的重复性、 准确性、稳定性、特异性均较好，脂血、溶血、黄疸无明显影响，具有较高的临床应用价值。
Objective: Methodology evaluation was performed for detection of ASO and RF by rate nephelometry. Methods: We determined the levels of serum RF in 158 patients and the levels of serum ASO in 96 patient serum samples and 25 normal subjects. At the same time, rate nephelometry was compared with latex agglutination test. Results: The CV value of intra-assays of RF was 1.83%, and that of inter-assays of RF was 3.82%. The CV value of intra-assays of ASO was 2.76%, and that of inter-assays of ASO was 5.28%. Quantification detection has satisfactory line relation. (RF r =0.987，ASO r =0.995). The positive rate of ASO was 16.6% by nephelometry, while the positive rate of ASO was 8.3% by latex agglutination test. The positive rate of RF was 24.1% by nephelometry, while the positive rate of RF was 18.4% by latex agglutination test. Rate nephelometry has a higher positive rate compared with latex method. 25 normal samples were detected by this method, the mean value of RF was less than 20IU/ml, the mean value of ASO was 70.7±55.6IU/ml. Conclusion: This method is quite good in reproducibility, accuracy, stabilization, and specificity, and is not affected by lipid, hemolysis and jaundice. This method is valuable in clinical use.
出处
《重庆医科大学学报》
CAS
CSCD
2001年第2期175-176,共2页
Journal of Chongqing Medical University
