Standard

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

BibTeX

@article{9a7c9b173036460e8919a22514b3f904,
title = "Comparison of four rapid diagnostic tests, ELISA, microscopy and PCR for the detection of Giardia lamblia, Cryptosporidium spp. and Entamoeba histolytica in feces",
abstract = "PURPOSE: Microscopy is the diagnostic reference standard for the detection of parasites, but it is labor-intensive and requires experience. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) can provide an alternative to microscopy.METHODS: RDTs from four different manufacturers were compared to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), microscopy and/or parasite-specific real-time PCR: ImmunoCardSTAT!{\circledR}CGE (Meridian Bioscience Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, USA) (A), Crypto/Giardia Duo-Strip (Coris Bioconcepts, Gembloux, Belgium) (B), RIDA{\circledR}QUICK Cryptosporidium/Giardia/Entamoeba Combi (R-BioPharm, Darmstadt, Germany) (C) and Giardia/Cryptosporidium Quik Chek (Techlab Inc., Blacksburg, Virginia, USA) (D).RESULTS: Thirty frozen samples were analyzed retrospectively. For Giardia lamblia (n=12) and Cryptosporidium (n=12) sensitivities ranged from 58{\%} (B), over 83{\%} (A, C) to 100{\%} (D) and from 92{\%} (B) to 100{\%} (A, C, D), respectively. Specificity for both G. lamblia and Cryptosporidium was 100{\%} for all RDT brands. Sensitivity for Entamoeba histolytica (n=5) was 100{\%}, while specificity reached 80{\%} (A) to 88{\%} (C). In a prospective study, fresh samples were tested. For G. lamblia (n=30), sensitivity ranged from 66{\%} (B), over 79{\%} (A) and 83{\%} (C) to 100{\%} (D) and specificity varied between 94{\%} (D) and 100{\%} (A, B, C). For Cryptosporidium (n=3), sensitivity was 100{\%} for all brands except (B) (67{\%}) and specificities were 95{\%} (A, B), 98{\%} (C) and 100{\%} (D). E. histolytica (n=1) was detected by both (A) and (C), while specificity was 81{\%} and 87{\%} respectively.CONCLUSION: RDTs can be a valuable tool when microscopic expertise is poor and in remote and outbreak settings where other techniques are often not available and rapid diagnosis is required.",
author = "{Van den Bossche}, Dorien and Lieselotte Cnops and Jacob Verschueren and {Van Esbroeck}, Marjan",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1016/j.mimet.2015.01.016",
language = "English",
volume = "110",
pages = "78--84",
journal = "Journal of Microbiological Methods",
issn = "0167-7012",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of four rapid diagnostic tests, ELISA, microscopy and PCR for the detection of Giardia lamblia, Cryptosporidium spp. and Entamoeba histolytica in feces

AU - Van den Bossche, Dorien

AU - Cnops, Lieselotte

AU - Verschueren, Jacob

AU - Van Esbroeck, Marjan

N1 - Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - PURPOSE: Microscopy is the diagnostic reference standard for the detection of parasites, but it is labor-intensive and requires experience. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) can provide an alternative to microscopy.METHODS: RDTs from four different manufacturers were compared to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), microscopy and/or parasite-specific real-time PCR: ImmunoCardSTAT!®CGE (Meridian Bioscience Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, USA) (A), Crypto/Giardia Duo-Strip (Coris Bioconcepts, Gembloux, Belgium) (B), RIDA®QUICK Cryptosporidium/Giardia/Entamoeba Combi (R-BioPharm, Darmstadt, Germany) (C) and Giardia/Cryptosporidium Quik Chek (Techlab Inc., Blacksburg, Virginia, USA) (D).RESULTS: Thirty frozen samples were analyzed retrospectively. For Giardia lamblia (n=12) and Cryptosporidium (n=12) sensitivities ranged from 58% (B), over 83% (A, C) to 100% (D) and from 92% (B) to 100% (A, C, D), respectively. Specificity for both G. lamblia and Cryptosporidium was 100% for all RDT brands. Sensitivity for Entamoeba histolytica (n=5) was 100%, while specificity reached 80% (A) to 88% (C). In a prospective study, fresh samples were tested. For G. lamblia (n=30), sensitivity ranged from 66% (B), over 79% (A) and 83% (C) to 100% (D) and specificity varied between 94% (D) and 100% (A, B, C). For Cryptosporidium (n=3), sensitivity was 100% for all brands except (B) (67%) and specificities were 95% (A, B), 98% (C) and 100% (D). E. histolytica (n=1) was detected by both (A) and (C), while specificity was 81% and 87% respectively.CONCLUSION: RDTs can be a valuable tool when microscopic expertise is poor and in remote and outbreak settings where other techniques are often not available and rapid diagnosis is required.

AB - PURPOSE: Microscopy is the diagnostic reference standard for the detection of parasites, but it is labor-intensive and requires experience. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) can provide an alternative to microscopy.METHODS: RDTs from four different manufacturers were compared to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), microscopy and/or parasite-specific real-time PCR: ImmunoCardSTAT!®CGE (Meridian Bioscience Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, USA) (A), Crypto/Giardia Duo-Strip (Coris Bioconcepts, Gembloux, Belgium) (B), RIDA®QUICK Cryptosporidium/Giardia/Entamoeba Combi (R-BioPharm, Darmstadt, Germany) (C) and Giardia/Cryptosporidium Quik Chek (Techlab Inc., Blacksburg, Virginia, USA) (D).RESULTS: Thirty frozen samples were analyzed retrospectively. For Giardia lamblia (n=12) and Cryptosporidium (n=12) sensitivities ranged from 58% (B), over 83% (A, C) to 100% (D) and from 92% (B) to 100% (A, C, D), respectively. Specificity for both G. lamblia and Cryptosporidium was 100% for all RDT brands. Sensitivity for Entamoeba histolytica (n=5) was 100%, while specificity reached 80% (A) to 88% (C). In a prospective study, fresh samples were tested. For G. lamblia (n=30), sensitivity ranged from 66% (B), over 79% (A) and 83% (C) to 100% (D) and specificity varied between 94% (D) and 100% (A, B, C). For Cryptosporidium (n=3), sensitivity was 100% for all brands except (B) (67%) and specificities were 95% (A, B), 98% (C) and 100% (D). E. histolytica (n=1) was detected by both (A) and (C), while specificity was 81% and 87% respectively.CONCLUSION: RDTs can be a valuable tool when microscopic expertise is poor and in remote and outbreak settings where other techniques are often not available and rapid diagnosis is required.

U2 - 10.1016/j.mimet.2015.01.016

DO - 10.1016/j.mimet.2015.01.016

M3 - A1: Web of Science-article

C2 - 25615719

VL - 110

SP - 78

EP - 84

JO - Journal of Microbiological Methods

JF - Journal of Microbiological Methods

SN - 0167-7012

ER -

ID: 1152853