Comparison of Direct Immunofluorescence (DIF) Method and Giemsa Staining with PCR Method for Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in Patients with Follicular Conjunctivitis

Zohreh Abedinyfar, Farahnoosh Doustdar, F. A. Amoli, H. Goudarzi, F. Fallah
{"title":"Comparison of Direct Immunofluorescence (DIF) Method and Giemsa Staining with PCR Method for Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in Patients with Follicular Conjunctivitis","authors":"Zohreh Abedinyfar, Farahnoosh Doustdar, F. A. Amoli, H. Goudarzi, F. Fallah","doi":"10.4172/2161-0703.1000246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Chlamydia trachomatis is the most common cause of chronic follicular conjunctivitis. As a rapid diagnosis is important in the reducing the long-term squeal of the diseases, the objective of this study was to compare the three methods, direct immunofluorescence (DIF), staining and PCR, for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in patients with follicular conjunctivitis. \nMaterial and methods: Overall 90 patients with conjunctival were enrolled in this study smears were prepared for DIF and Giemsa staining. PCR amplification after Extraction performed using CT1 and CT5 primers designed from Omp1 gene. \nResults: Of the 90 patients, 28 (31.1%) were positive by DIF and 13 (14.4%) by Giemsa staining; and 35 patients (38.8%) showed positive results in PCR. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive positive value, and negative predictive value of DIF in comparison to PCR respectively were calculated as 88.33, 100, 100 and 88.70. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive positive value and negative predictive value of DIF in comparison to PCR respectively were calculated as 61.40, 100, 100 and 71.42. Therefore, sensitivity and negative predictive value of DIF are significantly higher than Giemsa staining. \nConclusion: DIF is more sensitive and more reliable than Giemsa staining for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in the conjunctiva samples of patients with follicular conjunctivitis.","PeriodicalId":269971,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Microbiology and Diagnosis","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Microbiology and Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0703.1000246","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Chlamydia trachomatis is the most common cause of chronic follicular conjunctivitis. As a rapid diagnosis is important in the reducing the long-term squeal of the diseases, the objective of this study was to compare the three methods, direct immunofluorescence (DIF), staining and PCR, for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in patients with follicular conjunctivitis. Material and methods: Overall 90 patients with conjunctival were enrolled in this study smears were prepared for DIF and Giemsa staining. PCR amplification after Extraction performed using CT1 and CT5 primers designed from Omp1 gene. Results: Of the 90 patients, 28 (31.1%) were positive by DIF and 13 (14.4%) by Giemsa staining; and 35 patients (38.8%) showed positive results in PCR. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive positive value, and negative predictive value of DIF in comparison to PCR respectively were calculated as 88.33, 100, 100 and 88.70. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive positive value and negative predictive value of DIF in comparison to PCR respectively were calculated as 61.40, 100, 100 and 71.42. Therefore, sensitivity and negative predictive value of DIF are significantly higher than Giemsa staining. Conclusion: DIF is more sensitive and more reliable than Giemsa staining for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in the conjunctiva samples of patients with follicular conjunctivitis.
直接免疫荧光法与PCR法检测滤泡性结膜炎沙眼衣原体的比较
背景:沙眼衣原体是慢性滤泡性结膜炎最常见的病因。由于快速诊断对降低疾病的长期危象非常重要,本研究的目的是比较直接免疫荧光(DIF)、染色和PCR三种方法对滤泡性结膜炎患者沙眼衣原体的检测效果。材料和方法:本研究共纳入90例结膜患者,涂片进行DIF和Giemsa染色。提取后用从Omp1基因设计的CT1和CT5引物进行PCR扩增。结果:90例患者中,DIF阳性28例(31.1%),Giemsa染色阳性13例(14.4%);PCR阳性35例(38.8%)。与PCR比较,DIF的敏感性为88.33,特异性为100,预测阳性率为100,阴性预测值为88.70。与PCR相比,DIF的敏感性、特异性、预测阳性率和阴性预测值分别为61.40、100、100和71.42。因此,DIF的敏感性和阴性预测值明显高于Giemsa染色。结论:DIF检测滤泡性结膜炎患者结膜标本中沙眼衣原体比吉姆萨染色更敏感、更可靠。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信