scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of the InBiOS AMD rapid diagnostic test for the detection of Burkholderia pseudomallei antigen in grown blood culture broth

2018 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 1169-1177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marjan Peeters ◽  
Panha Chung ◽  
Hua Lin ◽  
Kristien Mortelmans ◽  
Chhundy Phe ◽  
...  
PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. e0125796 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis Adu-Gyasi ◽  
Kwaku Poku Asante ◽  
Sam Newton ◽  
David Dosoo ◽  
Sabastina Amoako ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. 1677
Author(s):  
Mohammad Ashfaque Ansari ◽  
Amit Kumar Thakur ◽  
Atindra Mishra ◽  
Md Jaffer Rain

Background: Typhoid fever still continues to be a major public health problem in Nepal. A clinical spectrum of typhoid varies widely. It causes significant complication as well as mortality. A simple, reliable, affordable and rapid diagnostic test has been a long felt need of the clinicians to prescribe specific medication, adopt prevention of the emergence of antibiotics resistance and overall reduce the disease burden in the community.Methods: The prospective descriptive study was performed in 125 children between 2 years to 15 years of age admitted to the Pediatrics Department from September 2017 to September 2018. Blood culture, Typhidot rapid IgM were performed. MEDCALC software was used to calculate 95% confidence interval for sensitivity, specificity, predictive value positive, predictive value negative and accuracy. Kappa test was used to determine the agreement between Typhidot IgM and blood culture methods.Results: The study consisted of 125 children with acute febrile illness for more than 3 days with clinical symptomatology, consistent with typhoid fever. The reliability of Typhidot IgM in relation with blood culture and the study lighten that sensitivity 92.3% (95% CI: 63.9, 99.8), specificity 49.1% (95% CI: 39.5, 58.7), PPV 17.4% (95% CI: 14.2, 21.1), NPV 98.2% (95% CI: 89.2, 99.7) and accuracy 53.6% (95% CI: 44.5, 62.6). The two methods i.e. Typhoid IgM and blood culture shows significant agreement with p value 0.004.Conclusions: The present study demonstrates that Typhidot IgM has all the attributes of an ideal screening test.


2014 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Cohen ◽  
C. Levy ◽  
S. Bonacorsi ◽  
A. Wollner ◽  
M. Koskas ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. e0194024 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura M. F. Kuijpers ◽  
Panha Chung ◽  
Marjan Peeters ◽  
Marie-France Phoba ◽  
Chun Kham ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Yanto Tjang ◽  
Tiara Gracienta ◽  
Ryan Herardi ◽  
Frans Santosa ◽  
Taufiq Pasiak

IntroductionThe rapid transmission of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requires a fast, accurate, and affordable detection method. Despite doubts of its diagnostic accuracy, Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT) is world-widely used in consideration for its practicality. This systematic review aims to determine the diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based RDT in detecting COVID-19.Material and methodsA literature search was carried out on five journal databases using the PRISMA-P 2015 method. We included all studies published up to February 2021. The risk of bias was evaluated using The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies. Data regarding peer-review status, study design, tests kit information, immunoglobulin class, target antigen, and the number of samples were extracted and tabulated. We estimated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) with a 95% confidence interval.ResultsThirty-three studies met the eligibility criteria. The pooled data results showed that the combined detection method of IgM or IgG had the highest sensitivity and NPV, which were 73.41% (95% CI: 72.22-74.57) and 75.34% (95% CI: 74.51-76.16), respectively. The single IgG detection method had the highest specificity and PPV of 96.68% (95% CI: 96.25-97.07) and 95.97% (95% CI: 95.47-96.42%), respectively.ConclusionsAntibody-based RDT is not satisfactory as a primary diagnostic test but has utilities as a screening tool.


2018 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 64 ◽  
Author(s):  
AnthonyAchizie Iwuafor ◽  
OkokonIta Ita ◽  
GodwinIbitham Ogban ◽  
UbongA Udoh ◽  
ChimerezeAnthony Amajor

2021 ◽  
pp. 105023
Author(s):  
Ginette A. Okoye ◽  
Haja I. Kamara ◽  
Michelle Strobeck ◽  
Thomas Alan Mellman ◽  
John Kwagyan ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document