MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций
Медицинская библиотека · Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica · 1990

[VDRL and FTA-ABS reactivity in cerebrospinal fluid: our experience].

García-Rodríguez J A, Martín-Sánchez A M, Canut A, García-García L, Cacho J

Сравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

The reactivity of 194 samples of CSF against VDRL and FTA-ABS was studied in patients attending the Clinical Hospital in Salamanca over a five years period. This laboratory was asked to rule out an etiology of syphilis. Twelve samples of CSF proved to be reactive (6.2%) against VDRL and/or FTA-ABS. Seven of these corresponded to six adults diagnosed as suffering from neurosyphilis and one to an infant with early congenital syphilis without neurological alterations; these had in common the presence of active syphilis and a reactive FTA-ABS in serum. In the CSF of the six cases of neurosyphilis, VDRL was reactive in two patients (33.3%) and FTA-ABS in five (83.3%). One minimally reactive VDRL and four FTA-ABS were detected in the remaining five patients, with no known previous history of syphilis, that were suffering from different neurological alterations and that had a nonreactive FTA-ABS in serum. The results obtained in this study point to inappropriate use in CSF of VDRL and FTA-ABS to exclude neurosyphilis in our hospital since only 3.6% of the CSF studied corresponded to patients diagnosed as suffering from neurosyphilis and also to the need for improving the criteria for patient selection.

Для цитирования: García-Rodríguez J A, Martín-Sánchez A M, Canut A, García-García L, Cacho J. [VDRL and FTA-ABS reactivity in cerebrospinal fluid: our experience].. Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica. 1990.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.