Evaluation of broad-range 16S rRNA PCR for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections: two years of experience
Introduction: Diagnosis of bloodstream infections using bacteriological cultures suffers from low sensitivity and reporting delay. Advanced molecular techniques introduced in many laboratories provide rapid results and may show improvements in patient outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the usefu...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries
2014-10-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Infection in Developing Countries |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://jidc.org/index.php/journal/article/view/4867 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850193128600895488 |
|---|---|
| author | Reem Mostafa Hassan Mervat G El Enany Hussien H Rizk |
| author_facet | Reem Mostafa Hassan Mervat G El Enany Hussien H Rizk |
| author_sort | Reem Mostafa Hassan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Introduction: Diagnosis of bloodstream infections using bacteriological cultures suffers from low sensitivity and reporting delay. Advanced molecular techniques introduced in many laboratories provide rapid results and may show improvements in patient outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of a molecular technique, broad-range 16S rRNA PCR followed by sequencing for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections, compared to blood culture in different patient groups.
Methodology: Conventional PCR was performed, using broad-range 16S rRNA primers, on blood cultures collected from different patients with suspected bloodstream infections; results were compared with those of blood culture.
Results: Though blood culture is regarded as the gold standard, PCR evaluation showed sensitivity of 86.25%, specificity of 91.25%, positive predictive value of 76.67%, negative predictive value of 95.22%, and accuracy of 88.8%.
Conclusions: Molecular assays seem not to be sufficient to replace microbial cultures in the diagnosis of bloodstream infections, but they can offer a rapid, good negative test to rule out infection due to their high negative predictive value.
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-9e4f1aa5ee5f4f72b83ec076acd1f6d2 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 1972-2680 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2014-10-01 |
| publisher | The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Infection in Developing Countries |
| spelling | doaj-art-9e4f1aa5ee5f4f72b83ec076acd1f6d22025-08-20T02:14:20ZengThe Journal of Infection in Developing CountriesJournal of Infection in Developing Countries1972-26802014-10-0181010.3855/jidc.4867Evaluation of broad-range 16S rRNA PCR for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections: two years of experienceReem Mostafa Hassan0Mervat G El Enany1Hussien H Rizk2Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, EgyptFaculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, EgyptFaculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, EgyptIntroduction: Diagnosis of bloodstream infections using bacteriological cultures suffers from low sensitivity and reporting delay. Advanced molecular techniques introduced in many laboratories provide rapid results and may show improvements in patient outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of a molecular technique, broad-range 16S rRNA PCR followed by sequencing for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections, compared to blood culture in different patient groups. Methodology: Conventional PCR was performed, using broad-range 16S rRNA primers, on blood cultures collected from different patients with suspected bloodstream infections; results were compared with those of blood culture. Results: Though blood culture is regarded as the gold standard, PCR evaluation showed sensitivity of 86.25%, specificity of 91.25%, positive predictive value of 76.67%, negative predictive value of 95.22%, and accuracy of 88.8%. Conclusions: Molecular assays seem not to be sufficient to replace microbial cultures in the diagnosis of bloodstream infections, but they can offer a rapid, good negative test to rule out infection due to their high negative predictive value. https://jidc.org/index.php/journal/article/view/4867blood stream infectionblood cultures16S rRNAPCR |
| spellingShingle | Reem Mostafa Hassan Mervat G El Enany Hussien H Rizk Evaluation of broad-range 16S rRNA PCR for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections: two years of experience Journal of Infection in Developing Countries blood stream infection blood cultures 16S rRNA PCR |
| title | Evaluation of broad-range 16S rRNA PCR for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections: two years of experience |
| title_full | Evaluation of broad-range 16S rRNA PCR for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections: two years of experience |
| title_fullStr | Evaluation of broad-range 16S rRNA PCR for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections: two years of experience |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of broad-range 16S rRNA PCR for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections: two years of experience |
| title_short | Evaluation of broad-range 16S rRNA PCR for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections: two years of experience |
| title_sort | evaluation of broad range 16s rrna pcr for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections two years of experience |
| topic | blood stream infection blood cultures 16S rRNA PCR |
| url | https://jidc.org/index.php/journal/article/view/4867 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT reemmostafahassan evaluationofbroadrange16srrnapcrforthediagnosisofbloodstreaminfectionstwoyearsofexperience AT mervatgelenany evaluationofbroadrange16srrnapcrforthediagnosisofbloodstreaminfectionstwoyearsofexperience AT hussienhrizk evaluationofbroadrange16srrnapcrforthediagnosisofbloodstreaminfectionstwoyearsofexperience |