A comparison of thick smears, QBC malaria, PCR and PATH falciparum malaria test trip in Plasmodium falciparum diagnosis.

Machine translation Machine translation
作者 Gaye O, Diouf M, Diallo S -More
类别 Primary study
期刊Parasite (Paris, France)
Year 1999
連結 Pubmed
从182例在门诊诊疗所的收费理查德介绍的血液样本。塞内加尔厚涂片镜检，QBC，PCR和新的试纸PATH疟疾检测，检测组氨酸丰富的蛋白质，恶性疟原虫抗原进行了分析。厚涂片显微镜被用来作为参考方法。敏感性，特异性，预测的正面和负面的价值分别为100％，83.6％，93.4％和100％QBC分别为100％，72.7％，89.4％和100％的PCR; 96％，92.7％，96.8％和91％路径检测。路径检测失败检测疟原虫阳性样品。设备和试剂的费用和速度和易用性方面进行了比较分析。快速路径法可以用最少的培训和地区可能特别有用的，其中恶性疟原虫是疟疾的主要品种，在疟疾流行地区，并在熟练的显微镜是没有现成的。
This translation has been produced by an automated software. If you wish to submit your own translation, please send it to translations@epistemonikos.org
Epistemonikos ID: 053e090ea76c3f192541250c268ddb289bb3a400
First added on: Sep 17, 2011
Warning
This is a machine translation from an article in Epistemonikos.

Machine translations cannot be considered reliable in order to make health decisions.

See an official translation in the following languages: English

If you prefer to see the machine translation we assume you accept our terms of use