Objective: To analyze the dynamic evaluation of chemiluminescence, colloidal gold, and immunofluorescence chromatography in detecting antibodies in COVID-19 patients within four weeks of infection, and to provide evid...Objective: To analyze the dynamic evaluation of chemiluminescence, colloidal gold, and immunofluorescence chromatography in detecting antibodies in COVID-19 patients within four weeks of infection, and to provide evidence for clinical application. Method: 74 patients with confirmed SARS-COV-2 infection in the local area were selected as the experimental group, while 231 patients with negative SARS-COV-2 results but not vaccinated with Covid19 vaccine were selected as the control group;during the first, second, third, and fourth weeks after enrollment in the experimental group, three methods were used to detect SARS-COV-2 IgG and IgM in patients’ blood: chemiluminescence method, colloidal gold antibody method, and immuno-fluorescence chromatography. In the control group, three methods were used to detect SARS-COV-2 IgG and IgM during physical examination for SARS-COV-2 nucleic acids. The ROC curve was drawn to analyze the value of each indicator in predicting SARS-COV-2 infection, and the kappa method was used to analyze the consistency of the detection results of each indicator. Results: There was no significant difference in the positive rates of SARS-COV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies detected by chemiluminescence, colloidal gold, and immunofluorescence chromatography during the four-week period (P > 0.05). The positive rates of SARS-COV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies detected by the three methods during the first week of infection were not higher than 60%;when the three methods were used to detect SARS-COV-2 IgM and IgG in vivo, the AUC diagnosed by the test results was less than 0.80 at the first week, the diagnostic efficacy of the three methods was above 0.95 from the second week to the fourth week, and the diagnostic efficacy of the three methods was higher than 0.97 at the fourth week. The diagnostic efficacy of the three methods was comparable;the three methods for detecting SARS-COV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies showed high consistency in four cycles. Conclusion: Chemiluminescence, colloidal gold, and immunofluorescen展开更多
目的:比较免疫速率散射比浊法和免疫荧光层析法检测血清淀粉样蛋白A(serum amyloid A protein,SAA)的结果。方法:收集住院病人(观察组)和健康体检者(对照组)血清,均分别采用全自动特定蛋白检测仪(采用免疫速率散射比浊法)和荧光免疫定...目的:比较免疫速率散射比浊法和免疫荧光层析法检测血清淀粉样蛋白A(serum amyloid A protein,SAA)的结果。方法:收集住院病人(观察组)和健康体检者(对照组)血清,均分别采用全自动特定蛋白检测仪(采用免疫速率散射比浊法)和荧光免疫定量分析仪(免疫荧光层析法)检测SAA水平,比较2种检测系统上的分析结果。结果:观察组血清用2种方法检测的SAA水平均高于对照组(P<0.01);观察组免疫速率散射比浊法所测SAA值高于免疫荧光层析法(P<0.01),而对照组采用2种方法所测SAA值差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。免疫速率散射比浊法和免疫荧光层析法检测的敏感度分别为53.00%和57.00%,特异度分别为92.00%和93.00%,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。荧光免疫层析法对健康体检者所测SAA的下限概率为83.00%(83/100),高于免疫速率散射比浊法的42.00%(42/100)(χ^2=35.86,P<0.01),荧光免疫层析法检测低值时候更稳定。结论:免疫速率散射比浊法和免疫荧光层析均能用于临床检测,后者的稳定性更好。展开更多
文摘Objective: To analyze the dynamic evaluation of chemiluminescence, colloidal gold, and immunofluorescence chromatography in detecting antibodies in COVID-19 patients within four weeks of infection, and to provide evidence for clinical application. Method: 74 patients with confirmed SARS-COV-2 infection in the local area were selected as the experimental group, while 231 patients with negative SARS-COV-2 results but not vaccinated with Covid19 vaccine were selected as the control group;during the first, second, third, and fourth weeks after enrollment in the experimental group, three methods were used to detect SARS-COV-2 IgG and IgM in patients’ blood: chemiluminescence method, colloidal gold antibody method, and immuno-fluorescence chromatography. In the control group, three methods were used to detect SARS-COV-2 IgG and IgM during physical examination for SARS-COV-2 nucleic acids. The ROC curve was drawn to analyze the value of each indicator in predicting SARS-COV-2 infection, and the kappa method was used to analyze the consistency of the detection results of each indicator. Results: There was no significant difference in the positive rates of SARS-COV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies detected by chemiluminescence, colloidal gold, and immunofluorescence chromatography during the four-week period (P > 0.05). The positive rates of SARS-COV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies detected by the three methods during the first week of infection were not higher than 60%;when the three methods were used to detect SARS-COV-2 IgM and IgG in vivo, the AUC diagnosed by the test results was less than 0.80 at the first week, the diagnostic efficacy of the three methods was above 0.95 from the second week to the fourth week, and the diagnostic efficacy of the three methods was higher than 0.97 at the fourth week. The diagnostic efficacy of the three methods was comparable;the three methods for detecting SARS-COV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies showed high consistency in four cycles. Conclusion: Chemiluminescence, colloidal gold, and immunofluorescen
文摘目的:比较免疫速率散射比浊法和免疫荧光层析法检测血清淀粉样蛋白A(serum amyloid A protein,SAA)的结果。方法:收集住院病人(观察组)和健康体检者(对照组)血清,均分别采用全自动特定蛋白检测仪(采用免疫速率散射比浊法)和荧光免疫定量分析仪(免疫荧光层析法)检测SAA水平,比较2种检测系统上的分析结果。结果:观察组血清用2种方法检测的SAA水平均高于对照组(P<0.01);观察组免疫速率散射比浊法所测SAA值高于免疫荧光层析法(P<0.01),而对照组采用2种方法所测SAA值差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。免疫速率散射比浊法和免疫荧光层析法检测的敏感度分别为53.00%和57.00%,特异度分别为92.00%和93.00%,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。荧光免疫层析法对健康体检者所测SAA的下限概率为83.00%(83/100),高于免疫速率散射比浊法的42.00%(42/100)(χ^2=35.86,P<0.01),荧光免疫层析法检测低值时候更稳定。结论:免疫速率散射比浊法和免疫荧光层析均能用于临床检测,后者的稳定性更好。
