This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 Guerrero, C.
Right arrow Articles by Segovia, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Guerrero, C.
Right arrow Articles by Segovia, M.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, January 2004, p. 467-468, Vol. 42, No. 1
0095-1137/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.1.467-468.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Comparison of Diagnostic Sensitivities of Three Assays (Bartels Enzyme Immunoassay [EIA], Biotest EIA, and Binax NOW Immunochromatographic Test) for Detection of Legionella pneumophila Serogroup 1 Antigen in Urine

Carmen Guerrero, Carmen M. Toldos, Genoveva Yagüe, Cristobal Ramírez, Tomás Rodríguez, and Manuel Segovia*

Servicio de Microbiología, Hospital "J. M. Morales Meseguer," 30008 Murcia, Spain

Received 24 March 2003/ Returned for modification 28 May 2003/ Accepted 14 October 2003

The Bartels enzyme immunoassay (EIA), Biotest EIA, and Binax NOW immunochromatographic test (ICT) urinary antigen kits for the detection of Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 were compared using 178 frozen urine samples. When nonconcentrated urine samples were used, the sensitivity levels of both enzyme EIAs were significantly higher than the sensitivity level of the ICT (Bartels EIA, 71.3%; Biotest EIA, 65.1%; Binax NOW ICT, 37% [P < 0.001]). After concentration of the urine samples, no significant differences in sensitivity were found among the three tests.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Hospital "J. M. Morales Meseguer," Servicio de Microbiología, Avda. Marques de los velez s/n, 30008 Murcia, Spain. Phone: 34-968-360953. Fax: 34-968-360950. E-mail: micromorales{at}hotmail.com.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, January 2004, p. 467-468, Vol. 42, No. 1
0095-1137/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.1.467-468.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Diederen, B. M. W., Peeters, M. F. (2006). Evaluation of Two New Immunochromatographic Assays (Rapid U Legionella Antigen Test and SD Bioline Legionella Antigen Test) for Detection of Legionella pneumophila Serogroup 1 Antigen in Urine.. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44: 2991-2993 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Rojas, A., Navarro, M. D., Fornes, F. E., Serra, E., Simarro, E., Rojas, J., Ruiz, J. (2005). Value of Serological Testing for Diagnosis of Legionellosis in Outbreak Patients. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43: 4022-4025 [Abstract] [Full Text]  


Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»