Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences / 2018 / Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of standard agglutination tests, enzyme immunoassay, and Coombs gel test used in laboratory diagnosis of human brucellosis

Sayfa
62–67
Yayın Tarihi
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Positive samplesfrom screening tests should be tested with AHG if the SWT value is

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Background/aim: It was aimed to evaluate the results of Rose Bengal (RB), ELISA total tests (IgM and IgG), and the Brucella Coombsgel test (BCGT), which are used as screening tests, with the combined results of a tube agglutination test (standard Wright test: SWT)and a tube agglutination test with antihuman globulin (AHG TAT).Materials and methods: Samples from 97 patients prediagnosed with brucellosis (age ≥18 years) were screened with RB, ELISA, andBCGT.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:SWT < 160 samples and RB-negative but ELISA- or BCGT-positive samples were tested by AHG TAT.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Positive samplesfrom screening tests should be tested with AHG if the SWT value is
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:160 samples
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Background/aim: It was aimed to evaluate the results of Rose Bengal (RB), ELISA total tests (IgM and IgG), and the Brucella Coombsgel test (BCGT), which are used as screening tests, with the combined results of a tube agglutination test (standard Wright test: SWT)and a tube agglutination test with antihuman globulin (AHG TAT).Materials and methods: Samples from 97 patients prediagnosed with brucellosis (age ≥18 years) were screened with RB, ELISA, andBCGT. SWT < 160 samples and RB-negative but ELISA- or BCGT-positive samples were tested by AHG TAT. SWT ≥ 160 or AHG TAT≥ 160 was taken as reference.Results: Thirty-two of 56 RB-positive samples and one RB-negative but ELISA- and BCGT-positive sample were found to be ≥160with SWT or AHG TAT. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and agreement (kappa) values according to SWT ≥ 160 or AHG TAT ≥ 160positivity were as follows, respectively: RB 96.9%, 62.5%, 74.2%, and 0.509; ELISA total 100%, 60.9%, 74.2%, and 0.515; BCGT test 97%,70.3%, 79.4%, and 0.594.Conclusion: Sensitivities of the screening tests are similar, but positivities should be confirmed by more specific tests. Positive samplesfrom screening tests should be tested with AHG if the SWT value is

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

TAŞBAKAN, M., ERENSOY, M. S., ÇİÇEKLİOĞLU, M., KOÇMAN, E. E. (2022). Comparison of standard agglutination tests, enzyme immunoassay, and Coombs gel test used in laboratory diagnosis of human brucellosis. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 1, 62–67. https://ajindex.com/articles/610301

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (8)

  1. Doğanay M, Alp Meşe E. Bruselloz. In: Topçu AW, Söyletir G, Doğanay M, editors. Enfeksiyon Hastalıkları ve Mikrobiyolojisi. 4th ed. İstanbul, Turkey: Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri; 2008. pp. 863- 871 (in Turkish). Mantur BG, Amarnath SK, Shinde RS. Review of clinical and laboratory features of human brucellosis. Indian J Med Microbiol 2007; 25: 188-202.
  2. Ulu Kilic A, Metan G, Alp E. Clinical presentations and diagnosis of brucellosis. Rec Patents Anti-Infect Drug Discovery 2013; 8: 34-41.
  3. Al-Kasab S, Al-Fagih MR, Al-Yousef S, Ali Khan MA, Ribeiro PA, Nazzal S, Al-Zaibag M. Brucella infective endocarditis. Successful combined medical and surgical therapy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1988; 95: 862-867.
  4. Du N, Wang F. Clinical characteristics and outcome of Brucella endocarditis. Turk J Med Sci 2016; 46: 1729-1733. World Health Organization. Brucellosis in Humans and Animals. WHO/CDS/EPR/2006.7. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2006. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı. Brusellozun Mikrobiyolojik Tanısı. Ulusal Mikrobiyoloji Standartları (UMS). Standard No: B-MT19. Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of Health, Republic of Turkey; 2015 (in Turkish). Araj GF. Update on laboratory diagnosis of human brucellosis. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2010; 36 (Suppl. 1): S12-17. Nielsen K. Diagnosis of brucellosis by serology. Vet Microbiol 2002; 90: 447-459.
  5. Al Dahouk S, Tomaso H, Nöckler K, Neubauer H, Frangoulidis D. Laboratory-based diagnosis of brucellosis - a review of the literature. Part II: Serological tests for brucellosis. Clin Lab 2003; 49: 577-589.
  6. Mert A, Ozaras R, Tabak F, Bilir M, Yilmaz M, Kurt C, Ongoren S, Tanriverdi M, Ozturk R. The sensitivity and specificity of Brucella agglutination tests. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2003; 46: 241-243. White RG. Immunoglobulin profiles of the chronic antibody response: discussion in relation to brucellosis infections. Postgrad Med J 1978; 54: 595-602.
  7. İrvem A, Yücel FM, Aksaray S, Bor E. Comparison of a new and rapid method, Brucella Coombs Gel test with the other methods in the serological diagnosis of brucellosis. Mikrobiyol Bul 2015; 49: 181-187 (in Turkish with an abstract in English). Türk Dağı H, Fındık D. Bruselloz tanısında yeni bir yöntem: Brucella Coombs Gel Test. Genel Tıp Derg 2016; 26: 19-22 (in Turkish with an abstract in English). Kalem F, Ergün A, Durmaz S. Comparison of a new and rapid method: Brucella Coombs gel test with other diagnostic tests. J Clin Lab Anal 2016; 30: 756-759.
  8. Hanci H, Igan H, Uyanik MH. Evaluation of a new and rapid serolog