Comparison of TechLab Clostridium difficile Tox-A enzyme immunoassay and bartels prima system Toxin-A EIA
We evaluated the Bartels Clostridium difficile toxin A test and the TechLab Tox-A test to detect C. difficile toxin A in stool. The results were compared with C. difficile cytotoxicity assays. Of the 463 specimens tested 82 (17.7%) tested positive by cytotoxicity assay. The sensitivity, specificity,...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease 1994-09, Vol.20 (1), p.1-5 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 5 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 1 |
| container_title | Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease |
| container_volume | 20 |
| creator | Forward, Kevin R. Dalton, Maurice T. Kerr, Elizabeth Paisley, Nadeen Cooper, Geraldine |
| description | We evaluated the Bartels Clostridium difficile
toxin A test and the TechLab Tox-A test to detect C. difficile
toxin A in stool. The results were compared with C. difficile
cytotoxicity assays. Of the 463 specimens tested 82 (17.7%) tested positive by cytotoxicity assay. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the TechLab EIA were 86.6%, 93.7%, 74.7%, and 97.0%, respectively. For the Bartels Prima EIA, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 95.1%, 95.5%, 82.1%, and 98.9%, respectively. The differences in sensitivity were statistically significant. Indeterminate results requiring repeat testing were more common with the TechLab EIA than with the Bartels Prima EIA. Of the two kits, the Bartels EIA is preferable, primarily because of its increased sensitivity. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/0732-8893(94)90011-6 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77742610</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>0732889394900116</els_id><sourcerecordid>77742610</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-4548f2e86ccd13d54b57a651b804047eb5af5de2e77eb40b9552cd92e88ff3d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kcGKFDEQhoMo67j6Bgo5iOihNelOdzoXYRjWdWHAy9xDOqlgpNMZU92y49Ob3hnm6KkK6vuL4itC3nL2mTPefWGyqau-V81HJT4pxjivumdkw3upKsYke042V-QleYX4qzC1EuyG3Mi-k7WqNyTsUjyaHDBNNHl6APtzbwa6GxPOObiwROqC98GGEeghPVZbCtPfUwQaYlymZBDNiZrJ0cHkGUakxxyioXjCGeKaCFPJ3D1sX5MX3owIby71lhy-3R1236v9j_uH3XZf2abv5kq0ovc19J21jjeuFUMrTdfyoWeCCQlDa3zroAZZesEG1ba1daokeu8b19ySD-e1x5x-L4CzjgEtjKOZIC2opZSi7jgroDiDNifEDF4_XZ5PmjO9CtarPb3a00roJ8G6K7F3l_3LEMFdQxejZf7-MjdozeizmWzAK9YIvn6hYF_PWFEGfwJkjTbAZMGFDHbWLoX_3_EP_dKXTg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>77742610</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of TechLab Clostridium difficile Tox-A enzyme immunoassay and bartels prima system Toxin-A EIA</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Forward, Kevin R. ; Dalton, Maurice T. ; Kerr, Elizabeth ; Paisley, Nadeen ; Cooper, Geraldine</creator><creatorcontrib>Forward, Kevin R. ; Dalton, Maurice T. ; Kerr, Elizabeth ; Paisley, Nadeen ; Cooper, Geraldine</creatorcontrib><description>We evaluated the Bartels Clostridium difficile
toxin A test and the TechLab Tox-A test to detect C. difficile
toxin A in stool. The results were compared with C. difficile
cytotoxicity assays. Of the 463 specimens tested 82 (17.7%) tested positive by cytotoxicity assay. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the TechLab EIA were 86.6%, 93.7%, 74.7%, and 97.0%, respectively. For the Bartels Prima EIA, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 95.1%, 95.5%, 82.1%, and 98.9%, respectively. The differences in sensitivity were statistically significant. Indeterminate results requiring repeat testing were more common with the TechLab EIA than with the Bartels Prima EIA. Of the two kits, the Bartels EIA is preferable, primarily because of its increased sensitivity.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0732-8893</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0070</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/0732-8893(94)90011-6</identifier><identifier>PMID: 7867292</identifier><identifier>CODEN: DMIDDZ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Bacterial Toxins - analysis ; Bacteriological methods and techniques used in bacteriology ; Bacteriology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Clostridium difficile - isolation & purification ; Culture Techniques ; Enterotoxins - analysis ; Evaluation Studies as Topic ; Feces - microbiology ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Humans ; Immunoenzyme Techniques ; Microbiology</subject><ispartof>Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 1994-09, Vol.20 (1), p.1-5</ispartof><rights>1994</rights><rights>1995 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-4548f2e86ccd13d54b57a651b804047eb5af5de2e77eb40b9552cd92e88ff3d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-4548f2e86ccd13d54b57a651b804047eb5af5de2e77eb40b9552cd92e88ff3d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0732-8893(94)90011-6$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=3410012$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7867292$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Forward, Kevin R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dalton, Maurice T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kerr, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paisley, Nadeen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cooper, Geraldine</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of TechLab Clostridium difficile Tox-A enzyme immunoassay and bartels prima system Toxin-A EIA</title><title>Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease</title><addtitle>Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis</addtitle><description>We evaluated the Bartels Clostridium difficile
toxin A test and the TechLab Tox-A test to detect C. difficile
toxin A in stool. The results were compared with C. difficile
cytotoxicity assays. Of the 463 specimens tested 82 (17.7%) tested positive by cytotoxicity assay. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the TechLab EIA were 86.6%, 93.7%, 74.7%, and 97.0%, respectively. For the Bartels Prima EIA, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 95.1%, 95.5%, 82.1%, and 98.9%, respectively. The differences in sensitivity were statistically significant. Indeterminate results requiring repeat testing were more common with the TechLab EIA than with the Bartels Prima EIA. Of the two kits, the Bartels EIA is preferable, primarily because of its increased sensitivity.</description><subject>Bacterial Toxins - analysis</subject><subject>Bacteriological methods and techniques used in bacteriology</subject><subject>Bacteriology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Clostridium difficile - isolation & purification</subject><subject>Culture Techniques</subject><subject>Enterotoxins - analysis</subject><subject>Evaluation Studies as Topic</subject><subject>Feces - microbiology</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Immunoenzyme Techniques</subject><subject>Microbiology</subject><issn>0732-8893</issn><issn>1879-0070</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1994</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kcGKFDEQhoMo67j6Bgo5iOihNelOdzoXYRjWdWHAy9xDOqlgpNMZU92y49Ob3hnm6KkK6vuL4itC3nL2mTPefWGyqau-V81HJT4pxjivumdkw3upKsYke042V-QleYX4qzC1EuyG3Mi-k7WqNyTsUjyaHDBNNHl6APtzbwa6GxPOObiwROqC98GGEeghPVZbCtPfUwQaYlymZBDNiZrJ0cHkGUakxxyioXjCGeKaCFPJ3D1sX5MX3owIby71lhy-3R1236v9j_uH3XZf2abv5kq0ovc19J21jjeuFUMrTdfyoWeCCQlDa3zroAZZesEG1ba1daokeu8b19ySD-e1x5x-L4CzjgEtjKOZIC2opZSi7jgroDiDNifEDF4_XZ5PmjO9CtarPb3a00roJ8G6K7F3l_3LEMFdQxejZf7-MjdozeizmWzAK9YIvn6hYF_PWFEGfwJkjTbAZMGFDHbWLoX_3_EP_dKXTg</recordid><startdate>19940901</startdate><enddate>19940901</enddate><creator>Forward, Kevin R.</creator><creator>Dalton, Maurice T.</creator><creator>Kerr, Elizabeth</creator><creator>Paisley, Nadeen</creator><creator>Cooper, Geraldine</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19940901</creationdate><title>Comparison of TechLab Clostridium difficile Tox-A enzyme immunoassay and bartels prima system Toxin-A EIA</title><author>Forward, Kevin R. ; Dalton, Maurice T. ; Kerr, Elizabeth ; Paisley, Nadeen ; Cooper, Geraldine</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-4548f2e86ccd13d54b57a651b804047eb5af5de2e77eb40b9552cd92e88ff3d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1994</creationdate><topic>Bacterial Toxins - analysis</topic><topic>Bacteriological methods and techniques used in bacteriology</topic><topic>Bacteriology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Clostridium difficile - isolation & purification</topic><topic>Culture Techniques</topic><topic>Enterotoxins - analysis</topic><topic>Evaluation Studies as Topic</topic><topic>Feces - microbiology</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Immunoenzyme Techniques</topic><topic>Microbiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Forward, Kevin R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dalton, Maurice T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kerr, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paisley, Nadeen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cooper, Geraldine</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Forward, Kevin R.</au><au>Dalton, Maurice T.</au><au>Kerr, Elizabeth</au><au>Paisley, Nadeen</au><au>Cooper, Geraldine</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of TechLab Clostridium difficile Tox-A enzyme immunoassay and bartels prima system Toxin-A EIA</atitle><jtitle>Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease</jtitle><addtitle>Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis</addtitle><date>1994-09-01</date><risdate>1994</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>5</epage><pages>1-5</pages><issn>0732-8893</issn><eissn>1879-0070</eissn><coden>DMIDDZ</coden><abstract>We evaluated the Bartels Clostridium difficile
toxin A test and the TechLab Tox-A test to detect C. difficile
toxin A in stool. The results were compared with C. difficile
cytotoxicity assays. Of the 463 specimens tested 82 (17.7%) tested positive by cytotoxicity assay. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the TechLab EIA were 86.6%, 93.7%, 74.7%, and 97.0%, respectively. For the Bartels Prima EIA, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 95.1%, 95.5%, 82.1%, and 98.9%, respectively. The differences in sensitivity were statistically significant. Indeterminate results requiring repeat testing were more common with the TechLab EIA than with the Bartels Prima EIA. Of the two kits, the Bartels EIA is preferable, primarily because of its increased sensitivity.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>7867292</pmid><doi>10.1016/0732-8893(94)90011-6</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0732-8893 |
| ispartof | Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 1994-09, Vol.20 (1), p.1-5 |
| issn | 0732-8893 1879-0070 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77742610 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
| subjects | Bacterial Toxins - analysis Bacteriological methods and techniques used in bacteriology Bacteriology Biological and medical sciences Clostridium difficile - isolation & purification Culture Techniques Enterotoxins - analysis Evaluation Studies as Topic Feces - microbiology Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Humans Immunoenzyme Techniques Microbiology |
| title | Comparison of TechLab Clostridium difficile Tox-A enzyme immunoassay and bartels prima system Toxin-A EIA |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T08%3A09%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20TechLab%20Clostridium%20difficile%20Tox-A%20enzyme%20immunoassay%20and%20bartels%20prima%20system%20Toxin-A%20EIA&rft.jtitle=Diagnostic%20microbiology%20and%20infectious%20disease&rft.au=Forward,%20Kevin%20R.&rft.date=1994-09-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=5&rft.pages=1-5&rft.issn=0732-8893&rft.eissn=1879-0070&rft.coden=DMIDDZ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/0732-8893(94)90011-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E77742610%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=77742610&rft_id=info:pmid/7867292&rft_els_id=0732889394900116&rfr_iscdi=true |