论文部分内容阅读
目的:研究并分析临床诊断阴道细菌的过程中,应用3种检验方法的诊断价值,为临床妇科诊断奠定基础。方法:自2014年6月-2015年6月我院收治了的阴道细菌感染患者,随机抽取60例作为本研究对象,分别予以不同的检验方法,并对比诊断结果。结果:予以三种不同的检验方法后,对试验组患者采用非洛地平缓释片治疗的临床总有效率(92.2%,59/64)显著高于对照组(75.0%,48/64),差异显著(P<0.01)。进一步两两比较发现,细菌培养法(71.75%)与革兰染色法(31.7%)的检出率差异显著(P<0.01),PCR检验法(83.3%)与革兰染色法(31.7%)的检出率差异显著(P<0.01),且PCR检验法(83.3%)与细菌培养法(71.75%)的阳性检出率差异显著(P<0.05)。结论:临床诊断阴道细菌的过程中,应用3种检验方法均可诊断,但是,PCR检验法具有较强的特异性与敏感性,其准确率略胜一筹,且操作简捷,价格低廉,应广泛推广。
Objective: To study and analyze the clinical diagnosis of vaginal bacteria, the diagnostic value of the three test methods, to lay the foundation for the clinical diagnosis. Methods: From June 2014 to June 2015, 60 patients with vaginal bacterial infections admitted to our hospital were randomly selected for the study. Different test methods were used and the diagnostic results were compared. Results: After three different test methods, the total effective rate (92.2%, 59/64) in the test group was significantly higher than that in the control group (75.0%, 48/64) The difference was significant (P <0.01). A further pairwise comparisons showed that there was a significant difference (P <0.01) between the bacterial culture method (71.75%) and the Gram stain method (31.7%), the PCR method (83.3%) and the Gram stain method (P <0.01), and there was a significant difference (P <0.05) in the positive detection rate between PCR test (83.3%) and bacterial culture test (71.75%). Conclusion: Three kinds of test methods can be used in clinical diagnosis of vaginal bacteria. However, the PCR test method has strong specificity and sensitivity, and its accuracy rate is slightly superior, and the operation is simple, the price is low, and should be widely used Promotion.