These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Comparison of five commercial assays for the detection of Legionella pneumophila antigens in urine].
    Author: de Ory F, Minguito T.
    Journal: Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin; 2009 Feb; 27(2):81-4. PubMed ID: 19254639.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Antigenuria detection is the main approach for diagnosing Legionella infections. The aim of this study was to compare 5 commercially available methods for detecting Legionella pneumophila soluble antigens in urine. METHODS: Seventy-one urine samples were tested, 62 from patients with bacterial infection and 9 from patients with respiratory syncytial virus infection. All samples were assayed for the presence of L. pneumophila by immunoenzymatic (ELISA) (Binax and Bartels), and immunochromatographic (IC) (Binax, SAS and Uni-Gold) methods. RESULTS: Identical results (35 positive and 17 negative) were obtained by the 5 assays in 52 samples (73.2%). Samples showing discrepant results were classified by the majority criterion, and/or other laboratory results (serology), and/or epidemiological findings. On this basis, 51 samples were ultimately classified as positive, and 20 as negative. Sensitivity values of ELISA-Binax, ELISA-Bartels, IC-Binax, IC-SAS and IC-Uni-Gold were 80.4, 100, 82.4, 86.3, and 70.6%, respectively. Corresponding values for specificity were 90, 95, 100, 95 and 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the methods compared are all adequate for diagnosing Legionella infection, although some have certain limitations regarding sensitivity.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]