摘要
目的对男性患者解脲脲原体进行三种检测方法的对比研究及药敏分析。方法选取桂林医学院附属医院自2015年1月至2015年12月收治的406例男性解脲脲原体感染患者作为临床研究对象,分别同时用培养鉴定法、DNA实时荧光定量法(RT-PCR)及RNA实时荧光恒温扩增检测(SAT)法三种方法对标本进行检测。以培养鉴定法作为对照组,对比RT-PCR及SAT方法对解脲脲原体的阳性检出率。结果培养鉴定法、RT-PCR、SAT法阳性检出率分别为41.7%、35.5%、43.6%,培养鉴定法与SAT法阳性检出率明显高于RT-PCR,具有显著差异(χ~2=4.35,P=0.0362);培养鉴定法与SAT法阳性率无明显差异(χ2=2.89,P=0.0982),有较好的一致性(K=0.890,P<0.05);药敏结果显示,解脲脲原体对强力霉素、美满霉素敏感性较高,敏感率为97.6%。结论对男性疑似解脲脲原体感染患者建议选择不同检测方法诊断以保证阳性检出率,可以更好指导临床抗生素合理使用。
Objectives To evaluate three methods for the detection of Ureaplasma urealyticum（Uu）and explore the resistance of the pathogen.Methods 406 cases of suspected non fungal infections in our hospital from Jan to Dec 2015 were included.Three kinds of detection methods,cultivating assay,polymerase chain reaction（RT-PCR）and simultaneous amplification and testing（SAT）were used respectively to detect the specimens.The detection rate of Uu by the three methods were compared.Results No significant difference in the detection rate was found between the cultivating assay method and SAT（χ2=2.89,P=0.0982）,but between cultivating assay and RT-PCR（χ2=4.35,P=0.0362）as well as between cultivating assay and SAT（χ2=4.57,P=0.0315）.The result by cultivating assay method showed a consistency with that by RT-PCR（K=0.890,P〈0.05）.The susceptibility of the pathogen to doxycycline and minocycline were high,up to 97.6%.Conclusion At least two detection methods should be adopted in the clinical diagnosis of Uu infections to ensure positive detection and guide reasonable use of antibiotics in clinical treatment.
出处
《中国微生态学杂志》
CAS
CSCD
2017年第2期214-216,共3页
Chinese Journal of Microecology
基金
广西壮族自治区卫生厅计划课题(Z2014319)
