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: ELISA versus conventional methods of diagnosing endemic brucellosis.
    Author: Mantur B, Parande A, Amarnath S, Patil G, Walvekar R, Desai A, Parande M, Shinde R, Chandrashekar M, Patil S.
    Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg; 2010 Aug; 83(2):314-8. PubMed ID: 20682874.
    Abstract:
    The diagnostic value of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was evaluated when blood specimens of 92 patients suspected of brucellosis underwent the ELISA (IgM and IgG), standard tube agglutination (SAT), and 2-mercaptoethanol (2-ME) tests and blood cultures; 38 sera from non-brucellosis patients and 34 sera from blood donors were also subjected to ELISA, SAT, and 2-ME tests. SAT was able to pinpoint only 23 (25%), whereas ELISA confirmed the etiology in 56 (60.9%; P < 0.001) patients with brucellosis, including 31 culture-confirmed cases. The sensitivity and specificity of ELISA were 100% and 71.31%, respectively. Because they were confirmed by ELISA, the diagnosis could never be excluded with SAT in 33 cases. ELISA has been found to be more sensitive in acute (28% higher sensitivity; P < 0.02) and chronic (55% higher sensitivity; P < 0.01) cases. For accurate diagnosis in suspected brucellosis cases detection, we recommend both ELISA IgM and IgG tests. ELISA IgG and 2-ME tests seem to be promising tools in judging prognosis.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]