JVDI
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Trevejo, R.
Right arrow Articles by Kass, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Trevejo, R.
Right arrow Articles by Kass, P.
Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, Vol 11, Issue 6, 491-496
Copyright © 1999 by American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians


Evaluation Studies

Evaluation of the polymerase chain reaction in comparison with other diagnostic methods for the detection of Chlamydia psittaci

RT Trevejo, BB Chomel, and PH Kass

School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.

Various diagnostic methods exist for the detection of Chlamydia psittaci. In the current study, the test performance of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was compared with other testing methods used in the diagnosis of C. psittaci. Tissue and fecal specimens (n = 119) of avian and mammalian origin were tested by PCR and one or more of the following methods: cell culture, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and direct fluorescein-conjugated monoclonal antibody staining. Several gold standards, based on results of testing methods other than PCR, were used to calculate the following test performance characteristics of PCR: sensitivity and specificity, with their 95% confidence intervals; kappa statistics, a measure of intertest agreement; and lambda statistics, a chance-corrected estimate of the sensitivity and specificity. Overall, the test performance characteristics of PCR were low compared with the other testing methods. Possible reasons for the poor test performance of PCR in the current study include destruction of the organisms during storage, interference with the PCR by other reagents, or technical errors.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1999 by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc.