Comparison of four screening methods for group B streptococcus

Q4 Health Professions
Kankan Gao, Xiaoshan Guan, Q. Deng, Lei Deng, Sufei Zhu, Xiaodong Hua, F. Gao
{"title":"Comparison of four screening methods for group B streptococcus","authors":"Kankan Gao, Xiaoshan Guan, Q. Deng, Lei Deng, Sufei Zhu, Xiaodong Hua, F. Gao","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1009-9158.2020.02.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \nTo evaluate diagnostic performance of Todd-Hewitt (T-H) broth culture method, direct culture method, liquid chromogenic culture method, and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) method for screening group B streptococcus (GBS) during late pregnancy. \n \n \nMethods \nIn the retrospective study, the rectal vaginal secretions samples were collected from pregnant women at 35 to 37 weeks at the obstetrics clinic of Guangzhou Women and Children′s Medical Center affiliated to Guangzhou Medical University during October 2016 to April 2018. For the purposes of clinical evaluation, T-H broth culture was used as the standard reference method, and double-blind trials were used to evaluate diagnostic performance of direct culture method, liquid chromogenic culture method, and LAMP method for screening group B streptococcus during late pregnancy in three research stages. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), coincidence rate and Yoden index for each method were calculated. Also, the level of agreement between each method and T-H broth was assessed using the kappa (k) coefficient. \n \n \nResults \nA total of 969 specimens were detected by the T-H enrichment culture method, and 90 were positive (9.3%). The sensitivities from high to low were LAMP method [100% (25/25)], direct culture method [81.5% (22/27), 95%CI:65.8%-97.1%], and liquid color culture method [71.1% (27/38), 95%CI:55.9%-86.2%]. Specificities were direct culture method [100% (282/282)], liquid color culture method [98.1% (455/464), 95%CI:96.8%-99.3%], and LAMP method [94.0% (125/133), 95%CI: 89.9%-98.1%]. The coincidence rates were direct culture method [98.4% (22+282)/309], liquid color culture method [96.0% (27+455)/502], and LAMP method [94.9% (25+125)/158]. The Kappa values of the direct culture method (0.889), LAMP method (0.832) and the enrichment culture method were all ≥0.75, and that of the liquid color culture method was 0.708. The false negative rate of direct culture method was 18.5% (5/27), and no false negative case by LAMP method, but its false positive rate was 6.0% (8/133). The false negative rate and false positive rate of liquid color culture method were 28.9% (11/38) and 1.9% (9/464), respectively. \n \n \nConclusions \nOf the three screening methods compared in this study, only the LAMP method has the advantages in sensitivity, specificity, and coincidence rate compared with T-H enriched culture method, while the others have a certain degree of false negatives rate. The clinical laboratory can introduce these methods based on laboratory facilities and staffing, or refer to the European and American guidelines and combine the recommended antenatal GBS screening method with intrapartum nucleic acid amplification tests to best meet the clinical demands. \n \n \nKey words: \nPregnancy trimester, third; Streptococcus agalactiae; Bacteriological techniques; Culture media; Nucleic acid amplification techniques; Sensitivity and specificity","PeriodicalId":10096,"journal":{"name":"中华检验医学杂志","volume":"28 1","pages":"182-185"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华检验医学杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1009-9158.2020.02.015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective To evaluate diagnostic performance of Todd-Hewitt (T-H) broth culture method, direct culture method, liquid chromogenic culture method, and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) method for screening group B streptococcus (GBS) during late pregnancy. Methods In the retrospective study, the rectal vaginal secretions samples were collected from pregnant women at 35 to 37 weeks at the obstetrics clinic of Guangzhou Women and Children′s Medical Center affiliated to Guangzhou Medical University during October 2016 to April 2018. For the purposes of clinical evaluation, T-H broth culture was used as the standard reference method, and double-blind trials were used to evaluate diagnostic performance of direct culture method, liquid chromogenic culture method, and LAMP method for screening group B streptococcus during late pregnancy in three research stages. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), coincidence rate and Yoden index for each method were calculated. Also, the level of agreement between each method and T-H broth was assessed using the kappa (k) coefficient. Results A total of 969 specimens were detected by the T-H enrichment culture method, and 90 were positive (9.3%). The sensitivities from high to low were LAMP method [100% (25/25)], direct culture method [81.5% (22/27), 95%CI:65.8%-97.1%], and liquid color culture method [71.1% (27/38), 95%CI:55.9%-86.2%]. Specificities were direct culture method [100% (282/282)], liquid color culture method [98.1% (455/464), 95%CI:96.8%-99.3%], and LAMP method [94.0% (125/133), 95%CI: 89.9%-98.1%]. The coincidence rates were direct culture method [98.4% (22+282)/309], liquid color culture method [96.0% (27+455)/502], and LAMP method [94.9% (25+125)/158]. The Kappa values of the direct culture method (0.889), LAMP method (0.832) and the enrichment culture method were all ≥0.75, and that of the liquid color culture method was 0.708. The false negative rate of direct culture method was 18.5% (5/27), and no false negative case by LAMP method, but its false positive rate was 6.0% (8/133). The false negative rate and false positive rate of liquid color culture method were 28.9% (11/38) and 1.9% (9/464), respectively. Conclusions Of the three screening methods compared in this study, only the LAMP method has the advantages in sensitivity, specificity, and coincidence rate compared with T-H enriched culture method, while the others have a certain degree of false negatives rate. The clinical laboratory can introduce these methods based on laboratory facilities and staffing, or refer to the European and American guidelines and combine the recommended antenatal GBS screening method with intrapartum nucleic acid amplification tests to best meet the clinical demands. Key words: Pregnancy trimester, third; Streptococcus agalactiae; Bacteriological techniques; Culture media; Nucleic acid amplification techniques; Sensitivity and specificity
B群链球菌四种筛查方法的比较
目的评价托德-休伊特(t - hewitt, T-H)肉汤培养法、直接培养法、液体显色培养法和环介导等温扩增(LAMP)法对妊娠晚期B族链球菌(GBS)的诊断效果。方法采用回顾性研究方法,采集2016年10月至2018年4月在广州医科大学附属广州妇女儿童医学中心产科门诊就诊的35 ~ 37周孕妇直肠阴道分泌物样本。临床评价以T-H肉汤培养为标准参比方法,采用双盲试验评价三个研究阶段直接培养法、液体显色培养法和LAMP法筛查妊娠晚期B组链球菌的诊断性能。计算各方法的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)、符合率和Yoden指数。此外,使用kappa (k)系数评估每种方法与T-H肉汤之间的一致性水平。结果T-H富集培养法共检测标本969份,阳性90份(9.3%)。灵敏度由高到低依次为LAMP法[100%(25/25)]、直接培养法[81.5% (22/27),95%CI:65.8% ~ 97.1%]、液色培养法[71.1% (27/38),95%CI:55.9% ~ 86.2%]。特异性分别为直接培养法[100%(282/282)]、液色培养法[98.1% (455/464),95%CI:96.8% ~ 99.3%]、LAMP法[94.0% (125/133),95%CI: 89.9% ~ 98.1%]。符合率分别为直接培养法(98.4%(22+282)/309)、液色培养法(96.0%(27+455)/502)、LAMP法(94.9%(25+125)/158)。直接培养法(0.889)、LAMP法(0.832)和富集培养法的Kappa值均≥0.75,液色培养法的Kappa值为0.708。直接培养法假阳性率为18.5% (5/27),LAMP法无假阴性病例,但假阳性率为6.0%(8/133)。液色培养法假阴性率为28.9%(11/38),假阳性率为1.9%(9/464)。结论在本研究比较的三种筛选方法中,只有LAMP法与T-H富集培养法相比在敏感性、特异性和符合率上具有优势,其他方法均有一定程度的假阴性率。临床检验科可根据实验室设施和人员配备情况介绍这些方法,或参考欧美指南,将推荐的产前GBS筛查方法与产时核酸扩增检测相结合,以最好地满足临床需求。关键词:妊娠三个月;链球菌agalactiae;细菌学的技术;文化媒体;核酸扩增技术;敏感性和特异性
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
中华检验医学杂志
中华检验医学杂志 Health Professions-Medical Laboratory Technology
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8037
期刊介绍:
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信