疑似肠热患者血培养与维达尔凝集试验的比较研究

Preety Chaudhary, V. Sharma, A. Chaudhary, S. Chaturwedi, A. Shrestha
{"title":"疑似肠热患者血培养与维达尔凝集试验的比较研究","authors":"Preety Chaudhary, V. Sharma, A. Chaudhary, S. Chaturwedi, A. Shrestha","doi":"10.9734/bmrj/2016/26141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims: This study was performed to identify the enteric fever cases by both blood culture and Widal agglutination test and compare the results obtained from both methods. Study Design: This research was carried out as hospital based descriptive cross-sectional study. Methods: Blood samples collected aseptically from patients suspecting enteric fever were processed for identification of Salmonella species by blood culture and Widal agglutination test. The isolates were further subjected to antibiotic susceptibility testing according to CLSI guidelines. Total 1269 samples from the suspected patients were enrolled for this study and statistical analysis of the result was done by using 16.0 versions of SPSS. Results: Among suspected patients studied, 70 (71%) and 29 (29%) cases were confirmed to be infected with S. typhi and S. paratyphi A respectively from blood culture. Out of total sera processed for Widal test, 263 samples gave agglutination with titre more than 1/80. The study showed sensitivity of 81.4% and specificity of 84.4%, positive predictive value of 31.5% and negative Original Research Article Chaudhary et al.; BMRJ, 16(5): 1-9, 2016; Article no.BMRJ.26141 2 predictive value of 98.2% and the efficiency 84.4% of Widal test in compare to blood culture. S. typhi isolates sensitive to the classical first line drugsamoxycillin, chloramphenicol and cotrimoxazole were 94.3%, 97.1% and 97.1% respectively while S. paratyphi A isolates sensitive were 68.9%, 96.5%, and 93.1% respectively. Fifty eight (82.9%) S. typhi isolates were nalidixic acid resistance while 25(86.2%) S. paratyphi A were nalidixic acid resistant. Also, 3(3.03%) multi-drug resistant isolates were confirmed to be nalidixic acid resistant. Conclusion: The study showed blood culture remains the gold standard for enteric fever diagnosis. Widal test alone either positive or negative should not be considered confirmatory for enteric fever However cut-off titre can be taken in the diagnosis and Widal test can be helpful in making a presumptive diagnosis of typhoid fever if interpreted with care. Azithromycin and Ceftriaxone were the most effective drugs for enteric fever cases.","PeriodicalId":9269,"journal":{"name":"British microbiology research journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Study of Blood Culture and Widal Agglutination Test from the Patients Suspected of Enteric Fever\",\"authors\":\"Preety Chaudhary, V. Sharma, A. Chaudhary, S. Chaturwedi, A. Shrestha\",\"doi\":\"10.9734/bmrj/2016/26141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aims: This study was performed to identify the enteric fever cases by both blood culture and Widal agglutination test and compare the results obtained from both methods. Study Design: This research was carried out as hospital based descriptive cross-sectional study. Methods: Blood samples collected aseptically from patients suspecting enteric fever were processed for identification of Salmonella species by blood culture and Widal agglutination test. The isolates were further subjected to antibiotic susceptibility testing according to CLSI guidelines. Total 1269 samples from the suspected patients were enrolled for this study and statistical analysis of the result was done by using 16.0 versions of SPSS. Results: Among suspected patients studied, 70 (71%) and 29 (29%) cases were confirmed to be infected with S. typhi and S. paratyphi A respectively from blood culture. Out of total sera processed for Widal test, 263 samples gave agglutination with titre more than 1/80. The study showed sensitivity of 81.4% and specificity of 84.4%, positive predictive value of 31.5% and negative Original Research Article Chaudhary et al.; BMRJ, 16(5): 1-9, 2016; Article no.BMRJ.26141 2 predictive value of 98.2% and the efficiency 84.4% of Widal test in compare to blood culture. S. typhi isolates sensitive to the classical first line drugsamoxycillin, chloramphenicol and cotrimoxazole were 94.3%, 97.1% and 97.1% respectively while S. paratyphi A isolates sensitive were 68.9%, 96.5%, and 93.1% respectively. Fifty eight (82.9%) S. typhi isolates were nalidixic acid resistance while 25(86.2%) S. paratyphi A were nalidixic acid resistant. Also, 3(3.03%) multi-drug resistant isolates were confirmed to be nalidixic acid resistant. Conclusion: The study showed blood culture remains the gold standard for enteric fever diagnosis. Widal test alone either positive or negative should not be considered confirmatory for enteric fever However cut-off titre can be taken in the diagnosis and Widal test can be helpful in making a presumptive diagnosis of typhoid fever if interpreted with care. Azithromycin and Ceftriaxone were the most effective drugs for enteric fever cases.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British microbiology research journal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British microbiology research journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.9734/bmrj/2016/26141\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British microbiology research journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9734/bmrj/2016/26141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:采用血培养和维达尔凝集试验鉴别肠热病例,并比较两种方法的结果。研究设计:本研究采用基于医院的描述性横断面研究。方法:对疑似肠热病患者无菌采血,采用血培养和维达尔凝集试验进行沙门氏菌鉴定。根据CLSI指南进一步进行抗生素敏感性试验。本研究共纳入疑似患者1269份样本,采用SPSS 16.0版本对结果进行统计分析。结果:在疑似病例中,经血培养分别确诊70例(71%)和29例(29%)感染斑疹伤寒沙门氏菌和甲型副伤寒沙门氏菌。在用于维达尔试验的全部血清中,有263份样品凝集,滴度超过1/80。该研究敏感性为81.4%,特异性为84.4%,阳性预测值为31.5%,阴性原创性研究文章Chaudhary等;中国生物医学工程学报,16(5):1-9,2016;文章no.BMRJ。与血培养相比,维达尔试验的预测值为98.2%,效率为84.4%。伤寒沙门氏菌对经典一线药物萨莫西林、氯霉素和复方新诺明的敏感性分别为94.3%、97.1%和97.1%,副伤寒沙门氏菌A的敏感性分别为68.9%、96.5%和93.1%。56株(82.9%)伤寒沙门氏菌耐钠啶酸,25株(86.2%)副伤寒沙门氏菌耐钠啶酸。3株(3.03%)多重耐药菌株对萘啶酸具有耐药性。结论:血培养仍是诊断肠热的金标准。单独使用维达尔试验,无论是阳性还是阴性,都不应被认为是肠热的确诊。然而,在诊断中可采用截止滴度,如果仔细解释维达尔试验,可有助于作出伤寒的推定诊断。阿奇霉素和头孢曲松是治疗肠热最有效的药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparative Study of Blood Culture and Widal Agglutination Test from the Patients Suspected of Enteric Fever
Aims: This study was performed to identify the enteric fever cases by both blood culture and Widal agglutination test and compare the results obtained from both methods. Study Design: This research was carried out as hospital based descriptive cross-sectional study. Methods: Blood samples collected aseptically from patients suspecting enteric fever were processed for identification of Salmonella species by blood culture and Widal agglutination test. The isolates were further subjected to antibiotic susceptibility testing according to CLSI guidelines. Total 1269 samples from the suspected patients were enrolled for this study and statistical analysis of the result was done by using 16.0 versions of SPSS. Results: Among suspected patients studied, 70 (71%) and 29 (29%) cases were confirmed to be infected with S. typhi and S. paratyphi A respectively from blood culture. Out of total sera processed for Widal test, 263 samples gave agglutination with titre more than 1/80. The study showed sensitivity of 81.4% and specificity of 84.4%, positive predictive value of 31.5% and negative Original Research Article Chaudhary et al.; BMRJ, 16(5): 1-9, 2016; Article no.BMRJ.26141 2 predictive value of 98.2% and the efficiency 84.4% of Widal test in compare to blood culture. S. typhi isolates sensitive to the classical first line drugsamoxycillin, chloramphenicol and cotrimoxazole were 94.3%, 97.1% and 97.1% respectively while S. paratyphi A isolates sensitive were 68.9%, 96.5%, and 93.1% respectively. Fifty eight (82.9%) S. typhi isolates were nalidixic acid resistance while 25(86.2%) S. paratyphi A were nalidixic acid resistant. Also, 3(3.03%) multi-drug resistant isolates were confirmed to be nalidixic acid resistant. Conclusion: The study showed blood culture remains the gold standard for enteric fever diagnosis. Widal test alone either positive or negative should not be considered confirmatory for enteric fever However cut-off titre can be taken in the diagnosis and Widal test can be helpful in making a presumptive diagnosis of typhoid fever if interpreted with care. Azithromycin and Ceftriaxone were the most effective drugs for enteric fever cases.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Isolation and Molecular Detection of Pathogenic Vibrio Species among Economic Fish from Red Sea in Egypt Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Wound Swabs of Patients Attending a Public Hospital in Warri Delta State, Nigeria Role of Three Different Laboratory Tests in Demonstrating Sensitization to Various Allergens in Common Atopic Disorders Molecular Identification, Bioactivity Screening and Metabolic Fingerprinting of the Actinomycetes of Chenab River Sediments Antibacterial Activity of Lactobacillus spp and Lactococcus spp Isolated from Various Parts of Pebbly Fish, Alestes baremoze
×
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