In:
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science (PLoS), Vol. 17, No. 2 ( 2023-2-21), p. e0011131-
Abstract:
This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the standard agglutination test (SAT), the Brucellacapt test and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in clinical specimens collected from patients with suspected brucellosis. Methods A prospective study was conducted from December 2020 to December 2021. Brucellosis was diagnosed on the basis of clinical evidence, and confirmed by isolation of Brucella or a four-fold rise in SAT titer. All samples were tested by the SAT, ELISA and the Brucellacapt test. Titers ≥1:100 were considered as SAT positive; ELISA was considered positive when an index greater than 11 was detected, while titers ≥1/160 indicated positivity on the Brucellacapt test. The specificity, sensitivity, and positive (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs) of the three different methods were calculated. Results A total of 149 samples were collected from patients with suspected brucellosis. The sensitivities for the SAT, IgG, and IgM detection were 74.42%, 88.37% and 74.42%, respectively. The specificities were 95.24%, 93.65%, and 88.89%, respectively. The simultaneous measurement of IgG and IgM improved the sensitivity (98.84%) but reduced the specificity (84.13%) compared to each antibody test separately. The Brucellacapt test had excellent specificity (100%) and a high PPV (100%); however, the sensitivity and NPV were 88.37% and 86.30%, respectively. The combination of IgG detection by ELISA and the Brucellacapt test had excellent diagnostic performance, with 98.84% sensitivity and 93.65% specificity. Conclusion This study showed that the simultaneous performance of IgG detection by ELISA and the Brucellacapt test has the potential to overcome the current limitations of detection.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
1935-2735
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pntd.0011131
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pntd.0011131.t001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pntd.0011131.t002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pntd.0011131.t003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pntd.0011131.s001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pntd.0011131.s002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pntd.0011131.s003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pntd.0011131.s004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pntd.0011131.s005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pntd.0011131.s006
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pntd.0011131.s007
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pntd.0011131.s008
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pntd.0011131.r001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pntd.0011131.r002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pntd.0011131.r003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pntd.0011131.r004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pntd.0011131.r005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pntd.0011131.r006
Language:
English
Publisher:
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Publication Date:
2023
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2429704-5
Permalink