Comparison and evaluation of four commercial kits relative to an in-house immunofluorescence test for detection of antibodies against Legionella pneumophila
Four commercially available kits from (1) Focus Diagnostics, (2) SERION, (3) Zeus and (4) Vircell for detection of antibodies to Legionella pneumophila were evaluated with panels of sera from patients with proven Legionella infection ( n = 81) and/or other bacterial infections ( n = 75). An in-hou...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases 2008-02, Vol.27 (2), p.149-152 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 152 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 149 |
| container_title | European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases |
| container_volume | 27 |
| creator | Elverdal, P. Jørgensen, C. S. Uldum, S. A. |
| description | Four commercially available kits from (1) Focus Diagnostics, (2) SERION, (3) Zeus and (4) Vircell for detection of antibodies to
Legionella pneumophila
were evaluated with panels of sera from patients with proven
Legionella
infection (
n
= 81) and/or other bacterial infections (
n
= 75). An in-house indirect
Legionella
immunofluorescence antibody test (IF test) was used as reference. All sera from the laboratory-proven
Legionella pneumophila
cases [culture, urinary antigen test and/or polymerase chain reaction] of
Legionella
infection were found to be positive by the in-house IF test. The relative sensitivity for Focus Diagnostics, SERION, Zeus and Vircell kits was 81.5, 76.5, 68.8 and 62.5%, respectively, and the false-positive rate was 16.0, 5.6, 29.0 and 2.7%, respectively. The in-house IF test had a false-positive rate of 4.0%. It was found that none of the four commercial kits were as sensitive and specific as the in-house IF test. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10096-007-0410-5 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_872125451</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>70237774</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-364d2737c69b888c938d9c6e1505f42eff6d94970b21e78e1cb5f2ab6238569b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc-KFDEQxoMo7uzqA3iRIKin1vztdI4y6CoMeNFzk05XZrN2J2PSveC7-LDWMKMLgl6SCvWrL1X1EfKMszecMfO24mnbBsOGKc4a_YBsuJK6UdLIh2TDrFSNNUJekMtabxmCnTGPyQU31gqt7Ib83Ob54EqsOVGXRgp3blrdEvGZAw15LdTneYbio5vot7hUWmBC4A7okrGExtTc5LUCjfO8phymNReoHpJHAuqCIoWOsID_rerSEoc8RqjU7V1MyOxgj0mYJkcPCdY5H27i5J6QR8FNFZ6e7yvy9cP7L9uPze7z9aftu13jtWJLI1s1CiONb-3QdZ23shutb4FrpoMSEEI7WmUNGwQH0wH3gw7CDa2QncYaeUVen3QPJX9fsed-jjgBdpMAR-s7IziuS3MkX_2XNExIY4xC8MVf4C3uMuEUveCdYcqooxo_Qb7kWguE_lDi7MqPnrP-6HB_crg_hkeHe401z8_C6zDDeF9xthSBl2fAVe-mUFzysf7hBGPKam6QEyeuYirtodx3-O_ffwHgE8Bv</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>218704741</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison and evaluation of four commercial kits relative to an in-house immunofluorescence test for detection of antibodies against Legionella pneumophila</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Elverdal, P. ; Jørgensen, C. S. ; Uldum, S. A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Elverdal, P. ; Jørgensen, C. S. ; Uldum, S. A.</creatorcontrib><description>Four commercially available kits from (1) Focus Diagnostics, (2) SERION, (3) Zeus and (4) Vircell for detection of antibodies to
Legionella pneumophila
were evaluated with panels of sera from patients with proven
Legionella
infection (
n
= 81) and/or other bacterial infections (
n
= 75). An in-house indirect
Legionella
immunofluorescence antibody test (IF test) was used as reference. All sera from the laboratory-proven
Legionella pneumophila
cases [culture, urinary antigen test and/or polymerase chain reaction] of
Legionella
infection were found to be positive by the in-house IF test. The relative sensitivity for Focus Diagnostics, SERION, Zeus and Vircell kits was 81.5, 76.5, 68.8 and 62.5%, respectively, and the false-positive rate was 16.0, 5.6, 29.0 and 2.7%, respectively. The in-house IF test had a false-positive rate of 4.0%. It was found that none of the four commercial kits were as sensitive and specific as the in-house IF test.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0934-9723</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1435-4373</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10096-007-0410-5</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17992549</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Antibodies, Bacterial - blood ; Bacterial diseases ; Bacterial diseases of the respiratory system ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Biomedicine ; Concise Article ; False Positive Reactions ; Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Indirect - methods ; Human bacterial diseases ; Humans ; Infectious diseases ; Internal Medicine ; Legionella pneumophila ; Legionella pneumophila - immunology ; Legionnaires' Disease - diagnosis ; Medical Microbiology ; Medical sciences ; Reagent Kits, Diagnostic ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Zeus</subject><ispartof>European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases, 2008-02, Vol.27 (2), p.149-152</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag 2007</rights><rights>2008 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-364d2737c69b888c938d9c6e1505f42eff6d94970b21e78e1cb5f2ab6238569b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-364d2737c69b888c938d9c6e1505f42eff6d94970b21e78e1cb5f2ab6238569b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10096-007-0410-5$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10096-007-0410-5$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=20049517$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17992549$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Elverdal, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jørgensen, C. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uldum, S. A.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison and evaluation of four commercial kits relative to an in-house immunofluorescence test for detection of antibodies against Legionella pneumophila</title><title>European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases</title><addtitle>Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis</addtitle><addtitle>Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis</addtitle><description>Four commercially available kits from (1) Focus Diagnostics, (2) SERION, (3) Zeus and (4) Vircell for detection of antibodies to
Legionella pneumophila
were evaluated with panels of sera from patients with proven
Legionella
infection (
n
= 81) and/or other bacterial infections (
n
= 75). An in-house indirect
Legionella
immunofluorescence antibody test (IF test) was used as reference. All sera from the laboratory-proven
Legionella pneumophila
cases [culture, urinary antigen test and/or polymerase chain reaction] of
Legionella
infection were found to be positive by the in-house IF test. The relative sensitivity for Focus Diagnostics, SERION, Zeus and Vircell kits was 81.5, 76.5, 68.8 and 62.5%, respectively, and the false-positive rate was 16.0, 5.6, 29.0 and 2.7%, respectively. The in-house IF test had a false-positive rate of 4.0%. It was found that none of the four commercial kits were as sensitive and specific as the in-house IF test.</description><subject>Antibodies, Bacterial - blood</subject><subject>Bacterial diseases</subject><subject>Bacterial diseases of the respiratory system</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biomedicine</subject><subject>Concise Article</subject><subject>False Positive Reactions</subject><subject>Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Indirect - methods</subject><subject>Human bacterial diseases</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infectious diseases</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Legionella pneumophila</subject><subject>Legionella pneumophila - immunology</subject><subject>Legionnaires' Disease - diagnosis</subject><subject>Medical Microbiology</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Reagent Kits, Diagnostic</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Zeus</subject><issn>0934-9723</issn><issn>1435-4373</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc-KFDEQxoMo7uzqA3iRIKin1vztdI4y6CoMeNFzk05XZrN2J2PSveC7-LDWMKMLgl6SCvWrL1X1EfKMszecMfO24mnbBsOGKc4a_YBsuJK6UdLIh2TDrFSNNUJekMtabxmCnTGPyQU31gqt7Ib83Ob54EqsOVGXRgp3blrdEvGZAw15LdTneYbio5vot7hUWmBC4A7okrGExtTc5LUCjfO8phymNReoHpJHAuqCIoWOsID_rerSEoc8RqjU7V1MyOxgj0mYJkcPCdY5H27i5J6QR8FNFZ6e7yvy9cP7L9uPze7z9aftu13jtWJLI1s1CiONb-3QdZ23shutb4FrpoMSEEI7WmUNGwQH0wH3gw7CDa2QncYaeUVen3QPJX9fsed-jjgBdpMAR-s7IziuS3MkX_2XNExIY4xC8MVf4C3uMuEUveCdYcqooxo_Qb7kWguE_lDi7MqPnrP-6HB_crg_hkeHe401z8_C6zDDeF9xthSBl2fAVe-mUFzysf7hBGPKam6QEyeuYirtodx3-O_ffwHgE8Bv</recordid><startdate>20080201</startdate><enddate>20080201</enddate><creator>Elverdal, P.</creator><creator>Jørgensen, C. S.</creator><creator>Uldum, S. A.</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</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>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080201</creationdate><title>Comparison and evaluation of four commercial kits relative to an in-house immunofluorescence test for detection of antibodies against Legionella pneumophila</title><author>Elverdal, P. ; Jørgensen, C. S. ; Uldum, S. A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-364d2737c69b888c938d9c6e1505f42eff6d94970b21e78e1cb5f2ab6238569b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Antibodies, Bacterial - blood</topic><topic>Bacterial diseases</topic><topic>Bacterial diseases of the respiratory system</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biomedicine</topic><topic>Concise Article</topic><topic>False Positive Reactions</topic><topic>Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Indirect - methods</topic><topic>Human bacterial diseases</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infectious diseases</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Legionella pneumophila</topic><topic>Legionella pneumophila - immunology</topic><topic>Legionnaires' Disease - diagnosis</topic><topic>Medical Microbiology</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Reagent Kits, Diagnostic</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Zeus</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Elverdal, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jørgensen, C. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uldum, S. A.</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>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Elverdal, P.</au><au>Jørgensen, C. S.</au><au>Uldum, S. A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison and evaluation of four commercial kits relative to an in-house immunofluorescence test for detection of antibodies against Legionella pneumophila</atitle><jtitle>European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases</jtitle><stitle>Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis</stitle><addtitle>Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis</addtitle><date>2008-02-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>149</spage><epage>152</epage><pages>149-152</pages><issn>0934-9723</issn><eissn>1435-4373</eissn><abstract>Four commercially available kits from (1) Focus Diagnostics, (2) SERION, (3) Zeus and (4) Vircell for detection of antibodies to
Legionella pneumophila
were evaluated with panels of sera from patients with proven
Legionella
infection (
n
= 81) and/or other bacterial infections (
n
= 75). An in-house indirect
Legionella
immunofluorescence antibody test (IF test) was used as reference. All sera from the laboratory-proven
Legionella pneumophila
cases [culture, urinary antigen test and/or polymerase chain reaction] of
Legionella
infection were found to be positive by the in-house IF test. The relative sensitivity for Focus Diagnostics, SERION, Zeus and Vircell kits was 81.5, 76.5, 68.8 and 62.5%, respectively, and the false-positive rate was 16.0, 5.6, 29.0 and 2.7%, respectively. The in-house IF test had a false-positive rate of 4.0%. It was found that none of the four commercial kits were as sensitive and specific as the in-house IF test.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>17992549</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10096-007-0410-5</doi><tpages>4</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0934-9723 |
| ispartof | European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases, 2008-02, Vol.27 (2), p.149-152 |
| issn | 0934-9723 1435-4373 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_872125451 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Antibodies, Bacterial - blood Bacterial diseases Bacterial diseases of the respiratory system Biological and medical sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedicine Concise Article False Positive Reactions Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Indirect - methods Human bacterial diseases Humans Infectious diseases Internal Medicine Legionella pneumophila Legionella pneumophila - immunology Legionnaires' Disease - diagnosis Medical Microbiology Medical sciences Reagent Kits, Diagnostic Sensitivity and Specificity Zeus |
| title | Comparison and evaluation of four commercial kits relative to an in-house immunofluorescence test for detection of antibodies against Legionella pneumophila |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T21%3A28%3A14IST&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%20and%20evaluation%20of%20four%20commercial%20kits%20relative%20to%20an%20in-house%20immunofluorescence%20test%20for%20detection%20of%20antibodies%20against%20Legionella%20pneumophila&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20clinical%20microbiology%20&%20infectious%20diseases&rft.au=Elverdal,%20P.&rft.date=2008-02-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=149&rft.epage=152&rft.pages=149-152&rft.issn=0934-9723&rft.eissn=1435-4373&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10096-007-0410-5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70237774%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=218704741&rft_id=info:pmid/17992549&rfr_iscdi=true |