Literature DB >> 26962088

Multicenter Evaluation of Clinical Diagnostic Methods for Detection and Isolation of Campylobacter spp. from Stool.

Collette Fitzgerald1, Mary Patrick2, Anthony Gonzalez3, Joshua Akin3, Christopher R Polage4, Kate Wymore5, Laura Gillim-Ross6, Karen Xavier6, Jennifer Sadlowski6, Jan Monahan7, Sharon Hurd8, Suzanne Dahlberg9, Robert Jerris10, Renee Watson10, Monica Santovenia2, David Mitchell2, Cassandra Harrison2, Melissa Tobin-D'Angelo11, Mary DeMartino12, Michael Pentella12, Jafar Razeq13, Celere Leonard13, Carrianne Jung13, Ria Achong-Bowe13, Yaaqobah Evans13, Damini Jain13, Billie Juni14, Fe Leano14, Trisha Robinson14, Kirk Smith14, Rachel M Gittelman15, Charles Garrigan15, Irving Nachamkin15.   

Abstract

The use of culture-independent diagnostic tests (CIDTs), such as stool antigen tests, as standalone tests for the detection of Campylobacter in stool is increasing. We conducted a prospective, multicenter study to evaluate the performance of stool antigen CIDTs compared to culture and PCR for Campylobacter detection. Between July and October 2010, we tested 2,767 stool specimens from patients with gastrointestinal illness with the following methods: four types of Campylobacter selective media, four commercial stool antigen assays, and a commercial PCR assay. Illnesses from which specimens were positive by one or more culture media or at least one CIDT and PCR were designated "cases." A total of 95 specimens (3.4%) met the case definition. The stool antigen CIDTs ranged from 79.6% to 87.6% in sensitivity, 95.9 to 99.5% in specificity, and 41.3 to 84.3% in positive predictive value. Culture alone detected 80/89 (89.9% sensitivity) Campylobacter jejuni/Campylobacter coli-positive cases. Of the 209 noncases that were positive by at least one CIDT, only one (0.48%) was positive by all four stool antigen tests, and 73% were positive by just one stool antigen test. The questionable relevance of unconfirmed positive stool antigen CIDT results was supported by the finding that noncases were less likely than cases to have gastrointestinal symptoms. Thus, while the tests were convenient to use, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of Campylobacter stool antigen tests were highly variable. Given the relatively low incidence of Campylobacter disease and the generally poor diagnostic test characteristics, this study calls into question the use of commercially available stool antigen CIDTs as standalone tests for direct detection of Campylobacter in stool.
Copyright © 2016, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26962088      PMCID: PMC4844741          DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01925-15

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Microbiol        ISSN: 0095-1137            Impact factor:   5.948


  23 in total

Review 1.  Statistical methods in microbiology.

Authors:  D M Ilstrup
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 26.132

2.  Detection of Campylobacter in stool and determination of significance by culture, enzyme immunoassay, and PCR in developing countries.

Authors:  James A Platts-Mills; Jie Liu; Jean Gratz; Esto Mduma; Caroline Amour; Ndealilia Swai; Mami Taniuchi; Sharmin Begum; Pablo Peñataro Yori; Drake H Tilley; Gwenyth Lee; Zeli Shen; Mark T Whary; James G Fox; Monica McGrath; Margaret Kosek; Rashidul Haque; Eric R Houpt
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Detection of non-jejuni and -coli Campylobacter species from stool specimens with an immunochromatographic antigen detection assay.

Authors:  Brianne A Couturier; Marc Roger Couturier; Kim J Kalp; Mark A Fisher
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-04-03       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  New methods for detection of campylobacters in stool samples in comparison to culture.

Authors:  Emilie Bessède; Adline Delcamp; Elodie Sifré; Alice Buissonnière; Francis Mégraud
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2011-01-05       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Comparison of premier CAMPY enzyme immunoassay (EIA), ProSpecT Campylobacter EIA, and ImmunoCard STAT! CAMPY tests with culture for laboratory diagnosis of Campylobacter enteric infections.

Authors:  Paul A Granato; Li Chen; Iris Holiday; Russell A Rawling; Susan M Novak-Weekley; Tammy Quinlan; Kimberlee A Musser
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  Rapid detection of Campylobacter jejuni in stool specimens by an enzyme immunoassay and surveillance for Campylobacter upsaliensis in the greater Salt Lake City area.

Authors:  M Hindiyeh; S Jense; S Hohmann; H Benett; C Edwards; W Aldeen; A Croft; J Daly; S Mottice; K C Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Clinical evaluation of a real-time PCR assay for identification of Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter (Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli), and shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolates in stool specimens.

Authors:  Blake W Buchan; Wendy J Olson; Michael Pezewski; Mario J Marcon; Thomas Novicki; Timothy S Uphoff; Lakshmi Chandramohan; Paula Revell; Nathan A Ledeboer
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Clinical laboratory practices for the isolation and identification of Campylobacter in Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) sites: baseline information for understanding changes in surveillance data.

Authors:  Sharon Hurd; Mary Patrick; Julie Hatch; Paula Clogher; Katie Wymore; Alicia B Cronquist; Suzanne Segler; Trisha Robinson; Samir Hanna; Glenda Smith; Collette Fitzgerald
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 9.079

9.  Foodborne illness acquired in the United States--major pathogens.

Authors:  Elaine Scallan; Robert M Hoekstra; Frederick J Angulo; Robert V Tauxe; Marc-Alain Widdowson; Sharon L Roy; Jeffery L Jones; Patricia M Griffin
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 6.883

10.  Dual priming oligonucleotide system for the multiplex detection of respiratory viruses and SNP genotyping of CYP2C19 gene.

Authors:  Jong-Yoon Chun; Kyoung-Joong Kim; In-Taek Hwang; Yun-Jee Kim; Dae-Hoon Lee; In-Kyoung Lee; Jong-Kee Kim
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2007-02-07       Impact factor: 16.971

View more
  12 in total

1.  Unforeseen Consequences: Culture-Independent Diagnostic Tests and Epidemiologic Tracking of Foodborne Pathogens.

Authors:  Alexander J McAdam
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2017-05-03       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Clinical Microbiology Laboratories' Adoption of Culture-Independent Diagnostic Tests Is a Threat to Foodborne-Disease Surveillance in the United States.

Authors:  Shari Shea; Kristy A Kubota; Hugh Maguire; Stephen Gladbach; Amy Woron; Robyn Atkinson-Dunn; Marc Roger Couturier; Melissa B Miller
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2016-12-28       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Revisiting the Roles of Culture and Culture-Independent Detection Tests for Campylobacter.

Authors:  Marc Roger Couturier
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Impact of Culture-Independent Diagnostic Testing on Recovery of Enteric Bacterial Infections.

Authors:  Aamer Imdad; Fiona Retzer; Linda S Thomas; Marcy McMillian; Katie Garman; Peter F Rebeiro; Stephen A Deppen; John R Dunn; Amy M Woron
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 9.079

5.  Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Two Immunochromatographic Tests Detecting Campylobacter in Stools and Their Role in Campylobacter Infection Diagnosis.

Authors:  Emilie Bessède; Julien Asselineau; Paul Perez; Guillaume Valdenaire; Olivier Richer; Philippe Lehours; Francis Mégraud
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  Genome Sequence Analysis and Characterization of Shiga Toxin 2 Production by Escherichia coli O157:H7 Strains Associated With a Laboratory Infection.

Authors:  Mark Eppinger; Sonia Almería; Anna Allué-Guardia; Lori K Bagi; Anwar A Kalalah; Joshua B Gurtler; Pina M Fratamico
Journal:  Front Cell Infect Microbiol       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 6.073

7.  Evaluation of the BioFire FilmArray® GastrointestinalPanel in a Midwestern Academic Hospital.

Authors:  C N Murphy; R C Fowler; P C Iwen; P D Fey
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2016-12-12       Impact factor: 3.267

8.  Incidence and Trends of Infections with Pathogens Transmitted Commonly Through Food and the Effect of Increasing Use of Culture-Independent Diagnostic Tests on Surveillance - Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, 10 U.S. Sites, 2013-2016.

Authors:  Ellyn P Marder; Paul R Cieslak; Alicia B Cronquist; John Dunn; Sarah Lathrop; Therese Rabatsky-Ehr; Patricia Ryan; Kirk Smith; Melissa Tobin-D'Angelo; Duc J Vugia; Shelley Zansky; Kristin G Holt; Beverly J Wolpert; Michael Lynch; Robert Tauxe; Aimee L Geissler
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 17.586

9.  Evidence of False Positivity for Vibrio Species Tested by Gastrointestinal Multiplex PCR Panels, Minnesota, 2016-2018.

Authors:  Marijke Decuir; Randal C Fowler; Elizabeth Cebelinski; Kirk Smith; David Boxrud; Carlota Medus
Journal:  Open Forum Infect Dis       Date:  2021-05-16       Impact factor: 3.835

Review 10.  Metagenomics: The Next Culture-Independent Game Changer.

Authors:  Jessica D Forbes; Natalie C Knox; Jennifer Ronholm; Franco Pagotto; Aleisha Reimer
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2017-07-04       Impact factor: 5.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.