两种过敏原检测方法的对比研究

目的 对UniCAP100变应原检测法和生物共振过敏原检测法的一致性进行对比观察.方法 采用双盲的方法,对28例过敏性疾病的患者280项过敏原进行UniCAP100和生物共振过敏原检测,将两种检测结果进行一致性检验.结果 28例患者中,生物共振法及UniCAP100检测法过敏原检出率分别为71.43%和21.43%.检测全阳性1例,两者一致性较差(P＜0.01);280项检测中,生物共振法及UniCAP100检测法检出过敏率分别为13.57%和3.57%,检测全阳性5项,两者一致性较差(P＜0.01).结论 生物共振检测与传统的UniCAP100过敏原检测一致性较差,生物共振检测不太适合在临床中应用.

Comparision between two checking anaphylactogen methods in patients with anaphylactic disease

Objective To study the consistency of the two methods, Pharmacia UniCAP100 and MORA-Super Bioresonance in checking the anaphylactogen in patients with anaphylactic disease. Methods A double blind and parallel comparision clinical trial was conducted in 28 suspecting patients with anaphylactic disease. They were all accepted UniCAP-100 checking and Bioresonance checking to the same 10 kinds of anaphylactogen. Then the checking result and consistency were compared. Results The check out rates of anaphylactogen were 71.43% and 21.43%. Respeclively in 28 suspecting patients by using Bioresonance method,and using UniCAP-100 method, there was no consistency (P＜0.01), the check out rates of anaphylactogen were 13.57% and 3.57%. Respeclively in 28 suspecting patients by using Bioresonance method, and using UniCAP- 100 method, there was no consistency too (P＜0.01 ). Conclusions There is no consistency between Pharmacia UniCAP100 method and MORA-Super Bioresonance method, that is not only in the number but also in the items which checked out. The consistency is poor,MORA-Super Bioresonance is not able to use in clinic.