EVALUATION OF MONOSTAPH PLUS IN COMPARISON TO TWO OTHER LATEX AGGLUTINATION TESTS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS

MARIT SØRUM, ROBERT SKOV
{"title":"EVALUATION OF MONOSTAPH PLUS IN COMPARISON TO TWO OTHER LATEX AGGLUTINATION TESTS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS","authors":"MARIT SØRUM,&nbsp;ROBERT SKOV","doi":"10.1111/j.1745-4581.2009.00177.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> ABSTRACT</h3>\n \n <p> <i>Three latex agglutination kits for rapid identification of</i> Staphylococcus aureus <i>were compared by testing a selection of isolates, which included methicillin resistant</i> S. aureus, <i>methicillin sensitive</i> S. aureus <i>and a diverse selection of coagulase-negative staphylococci. The sensitivities of Monostaph Plus (Bionor Laboratories, Skien, Norway), Pastorex Plus (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA) and Staphaurex Plus (Oxoid, Cambridge, UK) were 98.5, 98.3 and 98.3% respectively, and the specificities were 97.5, 97.0 and 96.5%, respectively. None of the kits detected</i> Staphylococcus lugdunensis <i>correctly. This evaluation shows that the Monostaph Plus agglutination kit performs well and comparable to Pastorex Staph-Plus and Staphaurex Plus.</i></p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS</h3>\n \n <p>Latex agglutination kits are very useful in the routine identification of <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>, but can occasionally give false-positive or false-negative results. Knowledge of how the various available kits are performing is, therefore, very important when selecting a kit for use. Correct identification of <i>S. aureus</i> is important, especially in relation to methicillin-resistant <i>S. aureus</i>, since other staphylococci species are known to carry the methicillin-resistance determinant <i>mecA</i>, but are of less clinical importance. This study is the first study comparing an improved version of the Monstaph-Plus kit with other latex agglutination kits, and provides new data about this kit.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50067,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rapid Methods and Automation in Microbiology","volume":"17 4","pages":"414-419"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.1745-4581.2009.00177.x","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rapid Methods and Automation in Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-4581.2009.00177.x","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

ABSTRACT

Three latex agglutination kits for rapid identification of Staphylococcus aureus were compared by testing a selection of isolates, which included methicillin resistant S. aureus, methicillin sensitive S. aureus and a diverse selection of coagulase-negative staphylococci. The sensitivities of Monostaph Plus (Bionor Laboratories, Skien, Norway), Pastorex Plus (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA) and Staphaurex Plus (Oxoid, Cambridge, UK) were 98.5, 98.3 and 98.3% respectively, and the specificities were 97.5, 97.0 and 96.5%, respectively. None of the kits detected Staphylococcus lugdunensis correctly. This evaluation shows that the Monostaph Plus agglutination kit performs well and comparable to Pastorex Staph-Plus and Staphaurex Plus.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Latex agglutination kits are very useful in the routine identification of Staphylococcus aureus, but can occasionally give false-positive or false-negative results. Knowledge of how the various available kits are performing is, therefore, very important when selecting a kit for use. Correct identification of S. aureus is important, especially in relation to methicillin-resistant S. aureus, since other staphylococci species are known to carry the methicillin-resistance determinant mecA, but are of less clinical importance. This study is the first study comparing an improved version of the Monstaph-Plus kit with other latex agglutination kits, and provides new data about this kit.

单葡萄球菌与其他两种乳胶凝集试验鉴别金黄色葡萄球菌的比较评价
摘要通过对耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌、甲氧西林敏感金黄色葡萄球菌和多种凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌的检测,比较了三种用于快速鉴定金黄色葡萄球菌的乳胶凝集试剂盒。Monostaph Plus (Bionor Laboratories, Skien, Norway)、Pastorex Plus (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA)和Staphaurex Plus (Oxoid, Cambridge, UK)的敏感性分别为98.5、98.3和98.3%,特异性分别为97.5、97.0和96.5%。所有试剂盒均未检出正确的卢氏葡萄球菌。本评价表明Monostaph Plus凝集试剂盒性能良好,可与Pastorex Staph-Plus和Staphaurex Plus相媲美。乳胶凝集试剂盒在金黄色葡萄球菌的常规鉴定中非常有用,但偶尔会产生假阳性或假阴性结果。因此,在选择使用试剂盒时,了解各种可用试剂盒的性能是非常重要的。正确鉴定金黄色葡萄球菌很重要,特别是与耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌有关,因为已知其他葡萄球菌物种携带甲氧西林耐药决定因素mecA,但临床重要性较低。本研究是第一个比较改良版Monstaph-Plus试剂盒与其他乳胶凝集试剂盒的研究,并提供了该试剂盒的新数据。
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
Journal of Rapid Methods and Automation in Microbiology
Journal of Rapid Methods and Automation in Microbiology 生物-生物工程与应用微生物
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