董一红 张曦 王雪 高萱 王迎辰 张岩

【摘要】 目的：比較AVE-562全自动粪便分析仪与KU-F10粪便分析仪粪便检测结果差异，评价两款仪器性能。方法：以人工镜检作为金标准，两款仪器分别检测粪便WBC、RBC、虫卵，分别计算两种仪器检测灵敏度、特异度、符合率、Youden指数等指标，通过四格表字2检验对两种仪器检测结果进行统计分析。结果：AVE-562检测RBC、WBC、虫卵灵敏度分别为93.13%、87.50%、90.38%，特异度分别为99.15%、99.25%、99.64%，符合率分别为98.62%、98.27%、99.22%，Kappa值分别为0.884、0.761、0.920。KU-F10检测RBC、WBC、虫卵灵敏度分别为87.25%、81.25%、73.08%，特异度分别为99.43%、98.30%、99.19%，符合率分别为98.36%、96.89%、98.01%，Kappa值分别为0.602、1.000、0.608。AVE-562检测粪便中WBC特异度、符合率高于KU-F10，差异有统计学意义（字2=3.894、4.685，P<0.05），AVE-562检测粪便中虫卵灵敏度、符合率均高于KU-F10，差异有统计学意义（字2=5.216、6.211，P<0.05）。结论：两款仪器检测粪便有形成分均有较高灵敏度、特异度、一致性，但仍需要人工审核镜下实景图或联合人工镜检以提高检验质量。

【关键词】 粪便检测 全自动粪便分析仪 人工镜检

doi：10.14033/j.cnki.cfmr.2020.19.033 文献标识码 B 文章编号 1674-6805（2020）19-00-03

Comparison of Test Result between AVE-562 and KU-F10 Automatic Stool Specimens/DONG Yihong， ZHANG Xi， WANG Xue， GAO Xuan， WANG Yingchen， ZHANG Yan. //Chinese and Foreign Medical Research， 2020， 18（19）： -84

[Abstract] Objective： To compare the difference between the AVE-562 automatic stool analyzer and the KU-F10 stool analyzer for the stool test results， and evaluate the performance of the two instruments. Method： Based on the gold standard of artificial microscopy， WBC， RBC and eggs of feces were detected by two kinds of instruments， and the detection sensitivity， specificity， coincidence rate and Youden index of the two instruments were calculated respectively. The detection results of the two instruments were statistically analyzed by four grid chi square test. Result： The sensitivity of AVE-562 on RBC， WBC， eggs was 93.13%， 87.50% and 90.38%， the specificity was 99.15%， 99.25% and 99.64%， the specificity was 98.62%， 98.27%， 99.22%， the Kappa value was 0.884， 0.761 and 0.920， respectively. The sensitivity of KU-F10 to detect RBC， WBC and eggs was 87.25%， 81.25% and 73.08%， the specificity was 99.43%， 98.30% and 99.19%， the coincidence rates were 98.36%， 96.89% and 98.01%， the Kappa value was 0.602， 1.000 and 0.608， respectively. The specificity and coincidence rate of the detection of WBC in faeces by AVE-562 were higher than those of KU-F10 （字2=3.894， 4.685， P<0.05）. The sensitivity and coincidence rate of AVE-562 were higher than KU-F10 （字2= 5.216， 6.211， P<0.05）. Conclusion： Compared with the manual microscopy， the two instruments have high sensitivity， specificity and consistency in detecting the formation of stool， but it is still necessary to manually audit the microscopic real image or combine with artificial microscopy to improve the quality of the test.

[Key words] Stool examination Automatic stool analyzer Manual microscopy

First-authors address： Fuxing Hospital， Capital Medical University， Beijing 100038， China

粪便有形成分分析主要包括红细胞（red blood cell，RBC）、白细胞（white blood cell，WBC）、虫卵等识别，有形成分分析对肠道疾病诊断与鉴别起着重要作用[1]。目前，粪便有形成分分析方法主要有相差显微镜人工镜检法及各种类型的分析仪自动分析。人工镜检法具有耗费人工、污染环境、难以实现标准化和规范化从而导致检验结果无法溯源等局限性[2]，而粪便分析仪具有快速、重复性好等优点。目前市场上全自动粪便分析产品有很多款，单独对比某款产品与人工镜检的研究已较为常见[3-5]，但是不同厂家粪便分析仪之间对比的研究报道较为少见。因此，本研究对人工镜检、AVE-562与KU-F10粪便分析仪检测结果进行了对比分析。

1 资料与方法

1.1 一般资料

留取首都医科大学附属复兴医院2019年6月15日-10月25日门诊及住院患者粪便常规检测标本共1 157例，其中男675例，年龄（48.52±16.74）岁;女482例，年龄（51.20±19.22）岁。……