S J Furrows1, A H Moody, P L Chiodini. 1. Department of Microbiology, Cecil Fleming House, University College London Hospital, Grafton Way, London WC1H, UK. sfurrows@aol.com
Abstract
AIMS: To assess different laboratory methods for the identification of Entamoeba histolytica in clinical samples. METHODS: Antigen detection enzyme linked immunosorbent assay, polymerase chain reaction solution hybridisation enzyme linked immunoassay (PCR-SHELA), and a commercial Lightcycler PCR were compared using 101 stool and pus samples. RESULTS: Fifteen of the 101 samples were positive for E histolytica by one or more method. There were discrepancies between the results in five of these 15 samples when the assays were compared. CONCLUSIONS: All three methods performed adequately, so that the choice of assay will depend on each individual laboratory's budget and projected turnaround time.
AIMS: To assess different laboratory methods for the identification of Entamoeba histolytica in clinical samples. METHODS: Antigen detection enzyme linked immunosorbent assay, polymerase chain reaction solution hybridisation enzyme linked immunoassay (PCR-SHELA), and a commercial Lightcycler PCR were compared using 101 stool and pus samples. RESULTS: Fifteen of the 101 samples were positive for E histolytica by one or more method. There were discrepancies between the results in five of these 15 samples when the assays were compared. CONCLUSIONS: All three methods performed adequately, so that the choice of assay will depend on each individual laboratory's budget and projected turnaround time.
Authors: Ibne Karim M Ali; Mohammad Bakhtiar Hossain; Shantanu Roy; Patrick F Ayeh-Kumi; William A Petri; Rashidul Haque; C Graham Clark Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: Thiago Dos Santos Gomes; Mariana Coimbra Garcia; Flavia de Souza Cunha; Heloisa Werneck de Macedo; José Mauro Peralta; Regina Helena Saramago Peralta Journal: ScientificWorldJournal Date: 2014-02-12