Group A Streptococcal Rapid Antigen Detection Test: A Clinical Study to Evaluate the Reproducibility Using Human Wound Samples.

Eplasty Pub Date : 2022-11-09 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01
Itaru Tsuge, Miho Matsui, Tomofumi Nakamura, Keisuke Watanabe, Eiichi Sawaragi, Hiroki Yamanaka, Motoki Katsube, Michiharu Sakamoto, Susumu Saito, Naoki Morimoto
{"title":"Group A Streptococcal Rapid Antigen Detection Test: A Clinical Study to Evaluate the Reproducibility Using Human Wound Samples.","authors":"Itaru Tsuge,&nbsp;Miho Matsui,&nbsp;Tomofumi Nakamura,&nbsp;Keisuke Watanabe,&nbsp;Eiichi Sawaragi,&nbsp;Hiroki Yamanaka,&nbsp;Motoki Katsube,&nbsp;Michiharu Sakamoto,&nbsp;Susumu Saito,&nbsp;Naoki Morimoto","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The early diagnosis of necrotizing soft tissue infection (NSTI) caused by group A streptococcus (GAS) for performing debridement surgery is key to the patient survival. In 1996, the diversional use of a GAS-rapid antigen detection test (RADT) for pharyngitis was reported, quickly spreading as a clinically useful method. However, no clinical study has evaluated the reliability of RADT by using wound samples. This is the first study using clinical wound samples to examine the reproducibility between GAS-RADT and wound culture.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients in whom wound culture samples were clinically necessary were included in this study. Two samples were obtained simultaneously: one for isolation of bacteria as wound culture and the other for GAS-RADT, with written informed consent. The reproducibility between GAS-RADT and wound culture was statistically evaluated by Cohen's kappa coefficient.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred samples from 94 patients were collected from 2020 to 2021. Two samples were GAS-positive on wound culture, and both were RADT-positive (positive reproducibility: 100%). Ninety-eight samples were GAS-negative on wound culture; of these, 97 were RADT-negative (negative reproducibility: 99%). Cohen's kappa coefficient was 0.80, indicating excellent agreement beyond chance. None of the bacteria showed cross-reactional influences. The only discrepant case (RADT-positive and wound culture-negative) was attributed to the administration of antibiotics for 2 days before the sampling.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The reproducibility between GAS-RADT and wound culture was statistically excellent, underscoring the reliability of GAS-RADT for wounds.</p>","PeriodicalId":11687,"journal":{"name":"Eplasty","volume":" ","pages":"e53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9664372/pdf/eplasty-22-e53.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eplasty","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The early diagnosis of necrotizing soft tissue infection (NSTI) caused by group A streptococcus (GAS) for performing debridement surgery is key to the patient survival. In 1996, the diversional use of a GAS-rapid antigen detection test (RADT) for pharyngitis was reported, quickly spreading as a clinically useful method. However, no clinical study has evaluated the reliability of RADT by using wound samples. This is the first study using clinical wound samples to examine the reproducibility between GAS-RADT and wound culture.

Methods: Patients in whom wound culture samples were clinically necessary were included in this study. Two samples were obtained simultaneously: one for isolation of bacteria as wound culture and the other for GAS-RADT, with written informed consent. The reproducibility between GAS-RADT and wound culture was statistically evaluated by Cohen's kappa coefficient.

Results: One hundred samples from 94 patients were collected from 2020 to 2021. Two samples were GAS-positive on wound culture, and both were RADT-positive (positive reproducibility: 100%). Ninety-eight samples were GAS-negative on wound culture; of these, 97 were RADT-negative (negative reproducibility: 99%). Cohen's kappa coefficient was 0.80, indicating excellent agreement beyond chance. None of the bacteria showed cross-reactional influences. The only discrepant case (RADT-positive and wound culture-negative) was attributed to the administration of antibiotics for 2 days before the sampling.

Conclusions: The reproducibility between GAS-RADT and wound culture was statistically excellent, underscoring the reliability of GAS-RADT for wounds.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A组链球菌快速抗原检测试验:评价人体伤口标本重复性的临床研究。
背景:A群链球菌(GAS)致坏死性软组织感染(NSTI)的早期诊断和清创手术是影响患者生存的关键。1996年,一种气体快速抗原检测法(GAS-rapid antigen detection test, RADT)被报道用于咽炎,作为一种临床有用的方法迅速传播开来。然而,尚无临床研究通过使用伤口样本来评估RADT的可靠性。这是第一个使用临床伤口样本来检验GAS-RADT和伤口培养之间的可重复性的研究。方法:选取临床需要创面培养标本的患者为研究对象。同时获得两份样本:一份用于分离细菌作为伤口培养,另一份用于GAS-RADT,并获得书面知情同意。采用Cohen’s kappa系数对GAS-RADT与创面培养的重复性进行统计学评价。结果:2020 - 2021年共采集94例患者100份样本。两份样本伤口培养均为gas阳性,radt阳性(阳性重复性100%)。98例伤口培养gas阴性;其中97例为radt阴性(负重复性为99%)。Cohen的kappa系数为0.80,表明非常吻合。没有一种细菌显示出交叉反应的影响。唯一的差异病例(radt阳性和伤口培养阴性)归因于取样前2天使用抗生素。结论:GAS-RADT与伤口培养之间的重复性在统计学上是很好的,强调了GAS-RADT用于伤口的可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Does Size Really Matter? A Review on How to Determine the Optimal Umbilical Size During an Abdominoplasty. The 5 D's to Dunk the Dog: A Retrospective Clinical Review to Prevent Dog-Ear Contour Abnormalities in Vertical Breast Reductions and Breast Lifts. Beneficial Impact of "Supercharged" Pectoralis Major Musculocutaneous Flap With Indocyanine Green Angiography on Reconstruction in a Patient at High Risk for Necrosis. The Safety of Long Inframammary Fold to Nipple Lengths in Inferior Pedicle Breast Reductions: A Decade of Experience. Are Large Intraoperative Fill Volumes Associated With Increased Complications After Tissue Expander Placement?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1