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 Kehl, K. S.
Right arrow Articles by Havens, P. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kehl, K. S.
Right arrow Articles by Havens, P. L.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 02 1995, 416-418, Vol 33, No. 2
Copyright © 1995 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Comparison of four different methods for detection of Cryptosporidium species

KS Kehl, H Cicirello and PL Havens
Department of Pathology, Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Newly available assays offer alternatives to conventional microscopic examination for Cryptosporidium spp. We compared two enzyme immunoassays, ProSpect Cryptosporidium microtiter assay (Alexon, Inc., Mountain View, Calif.) and Color Vue Cryptosporidium assay (Serady, Indianapolis, Ind.), and a direct immunofluorescent assay, Merifluor Cryptosporidium kit (Meridian Diagnostics, Cincinnati, Ohio), with acid- fast Kinyoun-staining for the detection of Cryptosporidium spp. Examinations were performed on 129 stool specimens received from patients during a recent waterborne outbreak. A specimen was considered positive when organisms could be identified visually by acid-fast and immunofluorescent stains or if organisms could be visualized by either acid-fast or immunofluorescent stain and detected by both enzyme immunoassays. The final number of positive specimens was 55. No single procedure detected all 55 positive specimens. Of these, ProSpect and Color Vue detected 52 (sensitivity, 94.5%), and the Kinyoun stain and Merifluor detected 53 (sensitivity, 96.4%). The final number of negative specimens was 74. One false-positive result was seen with both the Kinyoun stain and the ProSpect assay. The Color Vue and ProSpect assays required the most hands-on technologist time. The ProSpect assay and Merifluor kit were easiest to perform. The acid-fast stain was difficult to interpret. The Merifluor kit was easiest to read and was adaptable to both batch and single testing. Overall, the Kinyoun stain and the Merifluor test were preferable to both of the enzyme immunoassays because of the high reagent cost and hands-on time required for the enzyme immunoassays. The difficult interpretation of the Kinyoun stain smears made the Merifluor a more desirable test despite its higher cost.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)


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 © 1995 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.