Literature DB >> 21340299

Typhidot M and Diazo test vis-à-vis blood culture and Widal test in the early diagnosis of typhoid fever in children in a resource poor setting.

Farzana K Beig1, Faraz Ahmad, Mohd Ekram, Indu Shukla.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Typhoid fever is a major public health problem. A test which is simple, reliable and can be carried out in small laboratories is the need of the hour. We prospectively evaluated typhidot M and Diazo tests vis-à-vis blood culture and Widal test in children.
METHODS: Patients aged 6 months to 12 years, having fever of more than four days duration with clinical suspicion of typhoid fever were enrolled. Patients in whom other diagnosis was made served as control. The tests under scrutiny were validated against blood culture and then all the four tests were evaluated among patients who presented in the first week of illness.
RESULTS: Blood culture was positive in only 27.3% of the cases. Among these culture positive cases, typhidot M test had the highest sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 90% (95% CI = 74.4-96.5), 100% (95% CI = 90.1-100), 100% (95% CI = 87.5-100), and 92.1% (95% CI = 79.2-97.3) respectively. Diazo test ranked next with sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 86.7% (95% CI = 70.3-94.7), 85.7% (95% CI = 70.6-93.7), 83.9% (95% CI = 67.4-92.9), 88.2% (95% CI = 73.4-95.3) respectively. Among clinically suspected typhoid cases, the overall sensitivity, of blood culture, Widal, typhidot M, Diazo was 27.3% (95% CI = 19.8- 36.3), 64.6% (95% CI = 55.3-72.9), 89.1% (95% CI = 81.9-93.7), 80.9% (95% CI = 72.6-87.2) respectively. In the first week of illness, typhidot M showed the best sensitivity [86.2% (95% CI = 69.4-94.5)] followed by Diazo [79% (95% CI = 61.6-90.2)], Widal [41.4% (95% CI = 25.5-59.3)] and blood culture [31% (95% CI = 17.3-49.2)].
CONCLUSION: Both Typhidot M and Diazo are good screening tests for the diagnosis of typhoid fever. Typhidot M is superior to Diazo but the latter is more suitable to resource poor settings being economic and easy to perform.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21340299     DOI: 10.1016/s1413-8670(10)70116-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Braz J Infect Dis        ISSN: 1413-8670            Impact factor:   1.949


  6 in total

Review 1.  Temporal dimension in reference standard misclassification - a concept note.

Authors:  S A Rizwan; Baridalyne Nongkynrih; S Lena Charlette; Anand Krishnan
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2014-07-20

2.  A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study of the Performance of the Widal Test and the Typhidot Immunoassay for Typhoid Fever Diagnosis in the West Region of Cameroon.

Authors:  Karimo Ousenu; Innocent Mbulli Ali; Leonard Fonkeng Sama; Marcel Nsangou Ndam; Thibau Florant Tchouangueu; Christopher Bonglavnyuy Tume
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol       Date:  2021-08-07       Impact factor: 2.471

Review 3.  Rapid diagnostic tests for typhoid and paratyphoid (enteric) fever.

Authors:  Lalith Wijedoru; Sue Mallett; Christopher M Parry
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-05-26

Review 4.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of two point of care typhoid fever tests, Tubex TF and Typhidot, in endemic countries.

Authors:  Kamala Thriemer; Benedikt Ley; Joris Menten; Jan Jacobs; Jef van den Ende
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-16       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Comparative accuracy of typhoid diagnostic tools: A Bayesian latent-class network analysis.

Authors:  Paul Arora; Kristian Thorlund; Darren R Brenner; Jason R Andrews
Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis       Date:  2019-05-08

6.  A Meta-Analysis of Typhoid Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: A Recommendation to Adopt a Standardized Composite Reference.

Authors:  Helen L Storey; Ying Huang; Chris Crudder; Allison Golden; Tala de los Santos; Kenneth Hawkins
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-11-13       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.