高级检索
刘建礼, 肖利力, 王瑾, 张绍福. HIV抗体初筛阳性结果与确证试验结果比较[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2019, 35(7): 851-853. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1123948
引用本文: 刘建礼, 肖利力, 王瑾, 张绍福. HIV抗体初筛阳性结果与确证试验结果比较[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2019, 35(7): 851-853. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1123948
Jian-li LIU, Li-li XIAO, Jin WANG, . Results of HIV antibody screening test and confirmatory test: a comparative analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2019, 35(7): 851-853. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1123948
Citation: Jian-li LIU, Li-li XIAO, Jin WANG, . Results of HIV antibody screening test and confirmatory test: a comparative analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2019, 35(7): 851-853. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1123948

HIV抗体初筛阳性结果与确证试验结果比较

Results of HIV antibody screening test and confirmatory test: a comparative analysis

  • 摘要:
    目的 分析艾滋病病毒(HIV)初筛试验阳性结果与确证试验结果的符合性,探讨造成初筛假阳性的因素。
    方法 对1 012例HIV初筛阳性样本用免疫印迹试验(WB)进行确证试验,将初筛检测结果按年龄分布、检测方法、S/CO值与WB检测结果进行比对分析。
    结果 1 012份初筛阳性样本的总体确证阳性率为37.6 %(381/1 012),女性(6.9 %)确证阳性率明显低于男性(53.8 %),60岁以上人群确证阳性率为15.2 %,显著低于其它年龄组。初筛试验不同检测方法之间的确证阳性率差异明显,发光法最低,为32.6 %,快速法最高,为85.1 %。发光法S/CO值 < 5的确证阳性率仅为1.1 %。
    结论 初筛假阳性偏高一方面与特定人群有一定关系,同时受检测方法影响较大,发光法的广泛应用是造成假阳性升高的重要原因,发光法检测低值大部分为假阳性。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective To analyze the consistency between the results of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening test and confirmatory test results and to explore factors associated with false positive in screening test.
    Methods A total of 1 012 cases of HIV antibody positive in screening test were confirmed with Western blot (WB). The results of WB were compared with those of screening test according to the age distribution, test method and signal to cut-off (S/CO) value.
    Results The confirmed positive rate for all the samples was 37.6% (381/1 012). The confirmed positive rate for the female cases (6.9%) was much lower than that of the male cases (53.8%) and the positive rate of the cases over 60 years old was 15.2%, significantly lower than that of the cases of other ages. The positive rate of confirmatory test differed significantly by detection methods in the screening test, with the lowest for those with luminescence method (32.6%) and the highest with rapid method (85.1%). The confirmatory positive rate was only 1.1% for the results with the S/CO value of < 5 by luminescence method.
    Conclusion The high false positive rate in initial screening is related to specific examinees and is greatly affected by detection method. The extensive application of luminescence method is an important reason for the increase of false positive, and low value results of the luminescence method are mostly false positive.

     

/

返回文章
返回