English   español  
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/212036
Share/Impact:
Statistics
logo share SHARE logo core CORE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE

Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE
Exportar a otros formatos:

Title

Diagnostic performances of commercial ELISA, indirect hemagglutination, and western blot in differentiation of hepatic echinococcal and non-echinococcal lesions: A retrospective analysis of data from a single referral centre

AuthorsVola, Ambra; Manciulli, Tommaso; De Silvestri, Annalisa; Lissandrin, Raffaella; Mariconti, Mara; Siles Lucas, Mar ; Brunetti, Enrico; Tamarozzi, Francesca
KeywordsCystic echinococcosis
Hepatic CE
Diagnosis
ELISA
Indirect hemagglutination
Western blot
Issue Date2019
PublisherAmerican Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
CitationAmerican Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 101(6): 1345-1349 (2019)
AbstractThe diagnosis of cystic echinococcosis (CE) is based on imaging. Serology supports imaging in suspected cases, but no consensus exists on the algorithm to apply when imaging is inconclusive. We performed a retrospective analysis of serology results of patients with untreated hepatic CE and non-CE lesions, seen from 2005 to 017, to evaluate their accuracy in the differential diagnosis of hepatic CE. Serology results of three seroassays for echinococcosis (ELISA RIDASCREEN, indirect hemagglutination (IHA) Cellognost, and Western blot LDBIO) and clinical characteristics of eligible patients were retrieved. Patients were grouped as having active or inactive CE and liquid or solid non-CE lesions. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were compared between scenarios encompassing different test combinations. Eligible patients included 104 patients with CE and 257 with non-CE lesions. Sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy ofWestern blot (WB)were significantly higher than those of the following: 1) IHA or ELISA alone, 2) IHA+ELISA interpreted as positive if both or either tests positive, and 3) IHA+ELISA confirmed by WB if discordant. The best performances were obtained when WB was applied on discordant or concordant negative IHA+ELISA. Analyses performed within “active CE (n = 52) versus liquid non-CE (n = 245)” and “inactive CE (n = 52) versus solid non-CE (n = 12)” groups showed similar results. Specificity was high for all tests (0.99–1.00) and did not differ between test combination scenarios. WB may be the best test to apply in a one-test approach. Two first-level tests confirmed by WB seem to provide the best diagnostic accuracy. Further studies should be performed in different settings, especially where lower test specificity is likely.
Description5 páginas, 3 tablas
Publisher version (URL)http://dx.doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.19-0556
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/212036
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.19-0556
ISSN0002-9637
E-ISSN1476-1645
Appears in Collections:(IRNASA) Artículos
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
diagnostic performances of commercial ELISA.pdfArtículo principal72,61 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show full item record
Review this work
 


WARNING: Items in Digital.CSIC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.