Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Journal Article

Rapid bacterial antigen detection is not clinically useful.

M D Perkins, S Mirrett, L B Reller
M D Perkins
Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S Mirrett
Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
L B Reller
Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Latex agglutination (LA) of capsular polysaccharide bacterial antigen is a frequently performed laboratory procedure, but its use is controversial. To assess the clinical utility of this test, we reviewed all LA tests performed over a 10-month period at two sites, a major university-based referral center and a private specialty pediatric hospital. Samples were assayed either individually or as a panel for the group B streptococcus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and three sets of Neisseria meningitidis serogroups (A and Y, C and W135, and B and Escherichia coli K1). Of 5,169 assays performed on 1,268 clinical samples (786 urine and 478 cerebrospinal fluid, 3 pleural fluid, and 1 synovial fluid sample), 57 (1.1%) were positive, including 1.7% of urine and 0.3% of cerebrospinal fluid samples. All LA true-positive cerebrospinal fluid samples showed the causative microorganisms by Gram stain. Detailed chart review of these 57 positive samples showed that the LA result was false-positive in 31 (54%), true-positive in 22 (38%), and indeterminate in 4 (7%) samples. Therapy was not altered on the basis of any of the true-positive LA results. The 31 false-positive results led to additional cost, prolonged hospitalization, and some clinical complications. Total patient charges were $175,000 ($7,954 per true-positive), with no detectable clinical benefit. Our retrospective study does not support the current use of LA for rapid antigen detection. What, if any, specific indications exist for this test remain to be elucidated.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Rapid bacterial antigen detection is not clinically useful.
M D Perkins, S Mirrett, L B Reller
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jun 1995, 33 (6) 1486-1491; DOI:

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Rapid bacterial antigen detection is not clinically useful.
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Rapid bacterial antigen detection is not clinically useful.
M D Perkins, S Mirrett, L B Reller
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jun 1995, 33 (6) 1486-1491; DOI:
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X