摘要
目的以UniCAPl00过敏原检测方法（CAP）为“金标准”与Allergy Screen（敏筛）过敏原检测方法进行对比研究，为其临床应用提供试验依据。方法随机抽取的111份过敏患者标本，其中男性61例，女性50例；年龄4～77岁，平均年龄46岁。应用瑞典Pharmacia UniCAP100过敏原检测系统、德国Allergy Screen（敏筛）过敏原检测系统同时检测特异性IgE抗体，并用SPSS14．O统计软件包进行统计学分析。结果两种检验方法对12种特异性过敏原IgE抗体检测结果有很高的符合率，其中屋尘、矮豚草、鸡蛋白、蛋黄、腰果、花生、黄豆、小麦符合率为100％，户尘螨95％，蒿97％，猫皮屑97％，狗皮屑97％，牛奶99％，蟹83％。虾83％，分枝孢90％，链格孢90％，二者一致性极好（K〉0．75）。结论两种检测方法的结果显示出很好的一致性．临床医生和实验室可根据具体情况选择适宜的筛查方法。
Objective To study the consistency of UniCAP100 （CAP） and the Allergy Screen （AS） anaphylactogen detection methods. Methods A total of 111 hypersensitive patients were enrolled randomly, male 61, female 50, aged 4 - 77 years old, mean age 46 years old. Two methods above mentioned were used to detect the serum allergic specific IgE in 111 hypersensitive patients, and analyzed statistically using SPSS 14.0 statistical package. Results The high consistency were observed between 2 methods for the detection of 12 specific IgE antibodies. The coincidence rates were 100 % in the measurement of house dust（H1）, short ragweed（W1）, egg white, egg yolk（F245）, cashews, peanuts, soybeans（FnutCH） and wheat（F4）; For the detection of household dust mites（D1）, Artemisia（W6）, dander of cat or dog（El/E5）, milkfF2）, crab（F23）, shrimp（F24） and mycobacterium sp（Mxl）, the coincidence rates were 95 %, 97 %, 97 %, 99 %, 83 %, 83 % and 90 %, respectively. Conclusion It is demonstrated that because of the good correlations between the two methods, the physician and laboratory technician can choose one of the methods according to the actual clinical or economic situation.
出处
《生物医学工程与临床》
CAS
2012年第4期382-384,共3页
Biomedical Engineering and Clinical Medicine
