摘要
目的观察不同微生物检验方法用于妇科炎症感染的检验效果。方法回顾性分析2015年2月—2016年2月收治的135例妇科炎症感染患者临床资料,按检验方法不同设为甲组39例、乙组46例与丙组50例,三组分别采用培养法、干化学酶法及镜检法,观察三组检测结果及发现假菌丝、菌丝及菌孢子例数,数据进行统计学处理,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果甲组阳性率高于乙、丙两组,差异比较有统计学意义(χ~2=7.772、7.753,均P<0.05),甲组假菌丝、菌丝及菌孢子发现率均高于乙组(χ~2=7.056、7.772、4.593,均P<0.05),甲组假菌丝、菌丝及菌孢子发现率均高于丙组(χ~2=5.946、7.773、6.143,均P<0.05)。结论妇科炎症感染的多种生物检验方法中,培养法检验效果显著,对治疗妇科炎症感染具重要意义。
Objective To investigate the testing effect of different microbiological testing methods in the treatment of gynecological inflammation. Methods A retrospective analysis of clinical data was conducted in 135 cases of patients with Gynecological inflammation treated in our hospital form February 2015 to February 2016. The patients were divided into three groups according to different treatment methods, with 39 cases in group A, 46 cases in the group B, and 50 cases in the group C. The group A, B, and C received culture Method, dry chemistry assay and microscopic examination assay respectively. The test effect was analyzed and the amount of Pseudo Hyphae, hyphae and spore were observed. The data was statistically managed and compared, if P〈0.05, difference have statistical sense. Results The positive rate for the group A was significantly higher than the group B and group C （X^2=7.772, 7.753, P〈0.05）. The discovery rate of Pseudo Hyphae, hyphae and spore for the group A was significantly higher than the group B （X^2=7.056, 7.772, 4.593, P〈0.05）and the group C （X^2=5.946, 7.773, 6,143, P〈0.05）. Conclusion The culture method showed remarkable effects on the treatment of gynecological inflammation, and the culture method is significant in the treatment of gynecological inflammation.
出处
《社区医学杂志》
2017年第2期19-21,共3页
Journal Of Community Medicine
关键词
不同微生物检验
妇科炎症感染
检验效果
Different microbiological testing
Gynecological inflammation
Testing effect
