A comparison study of different methods used in the detection of Giardia lamblia.

Hassan Abdel-Aziz, C. E. Beck, M. F. Lux, M. J. Hudson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare results obtained using a single fecal specimen for O&P examination, direct immunofluorescent assay (DFA), and three immunodiagnostic techniques. DESIGN: Sixty-eight human fecal specimens were collected and examined by each method. The O&P and the DFA were used as the reference method. SETTING: The study was performed at the research laboratory in the Medical Technology Department at The University of Southern Mississippi. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: The fecal specimens were collected from individuals with a suspected Giardia lamblia infection. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The amount of agreement and disagreement between methods. 1. The sensitivity and specificity of each method. 2. The working time and cost per specimen for each method. RESULTS: There was complete agreement among methods on 52 specimens (21 positive, 31 negative). Eight specimens were positive by all immunologic methods, but negative by O&P. The remaining eight specimens (12%) demonstrated discrepancies among methods. Sensitivity and specificity of each assay ranged from 91% to 100% and 89% to 100%, respectively. The cost per specimen ranged from $11.62 for the DFA method to $32.54 for the O&P method. The average cost per specimen for ELISA and EIA averaged $26.86. CONCLUSION: The study supported findings of other investigators who concluded that immunologic methods have the greater sensitivity. The immunologic methods were more efficient, quicker, and economical than the conventional O&P method.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)150-154
Number of pages5
JournalClinical laboratory science : journal of the American Society for Medical Technology
Volume14
Issue number3
StatePublished - Jun 1 2001
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Giardia lamblia
Assays
Costs
Research laboratories
Costs and Cost Analysis
Medical Laboratory Science
Mississippi
Sensitivity and Specificity

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)

Cite this

A comparison study of different methods used in the detection of Giardia lamblia. / Abdel-Aziz, Hassan; Beck, C. E.; Lux, M. F.; Hudson, M. J.

In: Clinical laboratory science : journal of the American Society for Medical Technology, Vol. 14, No. 3, 01.06.2001, p. 150-154.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d7e4569a029d4e87adb9e2a7d700171e,
title = "A comparison study of different methods used in the detection of Giardia lamblia.",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare results obtained using a single fecal specimen for O&P examination, direct immunofluorescent assay (DFA), and three immunodiagnostic techniques. DESIGN: Sixty-eight human fecal specimens were collected and examined by each method. The O&P and the DFA were used as the reference method. SETTING: The study was performed at the research laboratory in the Medical Technology Department at The University of Southern Mississippi. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: The fecal specimens were collected from individuals with a suspected Giardia lamblia infection. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The amount of agreement and disagreement between methods. 1. The sensitivity and specificity of each method. 2. The working time and cost per specimen for each method. RESULTS: There was complete agreement among methods on 52 specimens (21 positive, 31 negative). Eight specimens were positive by all immunologic methods, but negative by O&P. The remaining eight specimens (12{\%}) demonstrated discrepancies among methods. Sensitivity and specificity of each assay ranged from 91{\%} to 100{\%} and 89{\%} to 100{\%}, respectively. The cost per specimen ranged from $11.62 for the DFA method to $32.54 for the O&P method. The average cost per specimen for ELISA and EIA averaged $26.86. CONCLUSION: The study supported findings of other investigators who concluded that immunologic methods have the greater sensitivity. The immunologic methods were more efficient, quicker, and economical than the conventional O&P method.",
author = "Hassan Abdel-Aziz and Beck, {C. E.} and Lux, {M. F.} and Hudson, {M. J.}",
year = "2001",
month = "6",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "150--154",
journal = "Journal of Medical Technology",
issn = "0894-959X",
publisher = "American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison study of different methods used in the detection of Giardia lamblia.

AU - Abdel-Aziz, Hassan

AU - Beck, C. E.

AU - Lux, M. F.

AU - Hudson, M. J.

PY - 2001/6/1

Y1 - 2001/6/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare results obtained using a single fecal specimen for O&P examination, direct immunofluorescent assay (DFA), and three immunodiagnostic techniques. DESIGN: Sixty-eight human fecal specimens were collected and examined by each method. The O&P and the DFA were used as the reference method. SETTING: The study was performed at the research laboratory in the Medical Technology Department at The University of Southern Mississippi. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: The fecal specimens were collected from individuals with a suspected Giardia lamblia infection. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The amount of agreement and disagreement between methods. 1. The sensitivity and specificity of each method. 2. The working time and cost per specimen for each method. RESULTS: There was complete agreement among methods on 52 specimens (21 positive, 31 negative). Eight specimens were positive by all immunologic methods, but negative by O&P. The remaining eight specimens (12%) demonstrated discrepancies among methods. Sensitivity and specificity of each assay ranged from 91% to 100% and 89% to 100%, respectively. The cost per specimen ranged from $11.62 for the DFA method to $32.54 for the O&P method. The average cost per specimen for ELISA and EIA averaged $26.86. CONCLUSION: The study supported findings of other investigators who concluded that immunologic methods have the greater sensitivity. The immunologic methods were more efficient, quicker, and economical than the conventional O&P method.

AB - OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare results obtained using a single fecal specimen for O&P examination, direct immunofluorescent assay (DFA), and three immunodiagnostic techniques. DESIGN: Sixty-eight human fecal specimens were collected and examined by each method. The O&P and the DFA were used as the reference method. SETTING: The study was performed at the research laboratory in the Medical Technology Department at The University of Southern Mississippi. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: The fecal specimens were collected from individuals with a suspected Giardia lamblia infection. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The amount of agreement and disagreement between methods. 1. The sensitivity and specificity of each method. 2. The working time and cost per specimen for each method. RESULTS: There was complete agreement among methods on 52 specimens (21 positive, 31 negative). Eight specimens were positive by all immunologic methods, but negative by O&P. The remaining eight specimens (12%) demonstrated discrepancies among methods. Sensitivity and specificity of each assay ranged from 91% to 100% and 89% to 100%, respectively. The cost per specimen ranged from $11.62 for the DFA method to $32.54 for the O&P method. The average cost per specimen for ELISA and EIA averaged $26.86. CONCLUSION: The study supported findings of other investigators who concluded that immunologic methods have the greater sensitivity. The immunologic methods were more efficient, quicker, and economical than the conventional O&P method.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035376917&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035376917&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 150

EP - 154

JO - Journal of Medical Technology

JF - Journal of Medical Technology

SN - 0894-959X

IS - 3

ER -