Rapid-Antigen Detection Tests for Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis: Revisiting False-Positive Results Using Polymerase Chain Reaction Testing

2013 ◽  
Vol 162 (6) ◽  
pp. 1282-1284.e1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jérémie F. Cohen ◽  
Robert Cohen ◽  
Philippe Bidet ◽  
Corinne Levy ◽  
Patrice Deberdt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Streptococcal Pharyngitis ◽  
Antigen Detection ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Polymerase Chain Reaction Testing ◽  
Group A ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Positive Results

Can Whipple's Disease Be Transmitted by Gastroscopes?

2003 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 191-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard La Scola ◽  
Jean-Marc Rolain ◽  
Max Maurin ◽  
Didier Raoult
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Bactericidal Activity ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Tropheryma Whipplei ◽  
Whipple’S Disease ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Whipple's Disease ◽  
Cell Monolayers ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Positive Results

AbstractObjective:To determine whether disinfection protocols currently used for gastroscopes are effective against cultures ofTropheryma whipplei.Design:The bactericidal activity of 2% glutaraldehyde and two peracetic acids on the Twist-Marseille strain ofT. whippleigrown in cell monolayers was determined.Patients:Two patients who were diagnosed as having Whipple's disease 3 years after they had had intestinal biopsies.Results:The disinfectants reduced bacteria by approximately 2 log10to 3 log10after 5 to 60 minutes of contact.Conclusion:The bactericidal activity of a disinfectant is usually considered significant if it causes a 5 log10or greater reduction in viable bacterial titers. Disinfecting gastroscopes with2%glutaraldehyde or peracetic acids for 20 minutes may be insufficient to prevent transmission ofT. whippleion the instruments or stop false-positive results on polymerase chain reaction.

FALSE-POSITIVE RESULTS AND THE POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION

The Lancet ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 332 (8612) ◽  
pp. 679 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y-M.D. Lo ◽  
W.Z. Mehal ◽  
K.A. Fleming
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Positive Results

Polymerase chain reaction amplification and typing of rotavirus in environmental samples

1995 ◽  
Vol 31 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 371-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Gajardo ◽  
R. M. Pintó ◽  
A. Bosch
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Environmental Samples ◽  
Polymerase Chain Reaction Amplification ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Pcr Assay ◽  
Group A ◽  
Reaction Amplification ◽  
Stool Specimens ◽  
Polymerase Chain

A reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay is described that has been developed for the detection and serotyping of group A rotavirus in stool specimens and concentrated and non-concentrated sewage specimens.

scholarly journals Comparison of Three Rapid Commercial Canine Parvovirus Antigen Detection Tests with Electron Microscopy and Polymerase Chain Reaction

2009 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 344-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silke Schmitz ◽  
Christina Coenen ◽  
König Matthias ◽  
Thiel Heinz-Jürgen ◽  
Reto Neiger
Keyword(s):  
Electron Microscopy ◽  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Chronic Diarrhea ◽  
Gastrointestinal Disease ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Canine Parvovirus ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Group A ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Group B

Different antibody-based tests for rapid detection of Canine parvovirus antigens in feces are commercially available, allowing quick diagnosis in a clinical setting. However, the diagnostic accuracy of these tests compared with standard methods has not been evaluated so far. In the current study, 3 commercial tests were compared with immune-electron microscopy (IEM) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Dogs were divided into 3 groups: group A, samples from dogs with acute hemorrhagic diarrhea ( n = 50); group B, dogs with chronic diarrhea ( n = 10); and group C, dogs with no evidence of gastrointestinal disease ( n = 40). Specificity of all 3 commercial tests versus PCR and IEM was good to excellent (92.2–100%). Sensitivity, in contrast, was poor: 15.8–26.3% versus PCR and 50–60% versus IEM. In group A, 10 dogs were positive by IEM and 24 dogs were positive by PCR. Positive PCR results were also obtained from animals in control groups (group B, 1 dog; group C, 5 dogs). No dog in group B or C was positive by IEM. In conclusion, the rapid tests are useful to diagnose canine parvoviral enteritis, but they do not rule out parvovirus infection in an animal with typical clinical signs. In addition, a small percentage of healthy dogs and dogs with chronic diarrhea showed positive PCR results; this may be due to asymptomatic/persistent infection or intestinal passage of virus. The significance of this finding remains unclear.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document