JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Moyer, N P
Right arrow Articles by Hausler, W J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Moyer, N P
Right arrow Articles by Hausler, W J, Jr

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

J Clin Microbiol. 1987 October; 25(10): 1969-1972

Comparison of serologic screening tests for brucellosis.

N P Moyer, G M Evins, N E Pigott, J D Hudson, C E Farshy, J C Feeley and W J Hausler Jr

Hygienic Laboratory, University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242.

ABSTRACT

The slide agglutination test (SAT), microagglutination test (MAT), and card agglutination test (CAT) were compared with each other, using the tube agglutination test (TAT) as the standard method, by two reference laboratories to determine effectiveness as screening tests for human brucellosis. TAT titers of 1,253 sera tested in both laboratories were compared. In one laboratory, 1,270 sera were tested by the TAT and SAT, while the other laboratory tested 1,261 sera by both methods. Of these sera, 1,155 were tested in one laboratory by the CAT and 187 sera were tested by the MAT. Compared with that of the TAT (greater than or equal to 160 positive), the sensitivities were 97 to 100% (SAT), 90% (CAT), and 88% (MAT). The specificities were 88 to 89% (SAT), 98% (CAT), and 88% (MAT). For populations with a low prevalence of disease, increased specificity offers higher predictive value, so the CAT and MAT are preferable for screening purposes and the choice between tests depends on the number and frequency of tests performed. All sera reactive in the CAT and MAT should be retested with the TAT.


J Clin Microbiol. 1987 October; 25(10): 1969-1972




This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 1987 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.