Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/11054/29
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Hurley, James C. | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2012-10-10T05:03:04Z | en |
dc.date.available | 2012-10-10T05:03:04Z | en |
dc.date.issued | 2010 | en |
dc.identifier.govdoc | 00016 | en |
dc.identifier.issn | 0934-9723 | en |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11054/29 | en |
dc.description.abstract | The limulus assay for endotoxin has been studied as a method for the rapid identification of gram-negative (GN) bacteraemia. The chromogenic (C-limulus) version is 100-fold more sensitive to an internal endotoxin standard than the earlier gelation version (G-limulus). The objective of this analysis is to compare the concordance between GN bacteraemia and endotoxaemia as determined in clinical studies using either version of the limulus assay. The summary results for the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), sensitivity and specificity were derived using a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) method of meta-analysis. Fifty-eight studies (25 G-limulus and 33 C-limulus) were included. Surprisingly, the mean DOR (4.9; 3-7.9 versus 10.7; 5.2-21.8) was inferior for studies using the C-limulus versus the original G-limulus version of the assay. Moreover, among studies limited to sepsis syndrome patients, the mean DOR remains poor at 4.2 (1.8-9.5). The proportion of GN bacteraemic patients for whom endotoxaemia is not detectable with either version of the limulus assay is >20% among the 58 studies overall, but >30% after the exclusion of studies with <25 patients and >20% among studies of patients with sepsis syndrome. These findings help to reconcile seemingly disparate study results. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Submitted by Gemma Siemensma (gemmas@bhs.org.au) on 2012-10-10T05:02:35Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.provenance | Approved for entry into archive by Gemma Siemensma (gemmas@bhs.org.au) on 2012-10-10T05:03:04Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2012-10-10T05:03:04Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2010 | en |
dc.publisher | Springer | en |
dc.title | Does gram-negative bacteraemia occur without endotoxaemia? A meta-analysis using hierarchical summary ROC curves. | en |
dc.type | Journal Article | en |
dc.type.specified | Article | en |
dc.bibliographicCitation.title | European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases | en |
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume | 29 | en |
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue | 2 | en |
dc.bibliographicCitation.stpage | 207 | en |
dc.bibliographicCitation.endpage | 215 | en |
dc.publisher.place | Berlin | en |
dc.subject.healththesaurus | META ANALYSIS | en |
dc.subject.healththesaurus | ENDOTOXEMIA - DIAGNOSIS | en |
dc.subject.healththesaurus | HUMANS | en |
dc.subject.healththesaurus | LIMULUS TEST | en |
dc.subject.healththesaurus | STATISTICS AS TOPIC | en |
dc.subject.healththesaurus | GRAM NEGATIVE BACTERIAL INFECTIONS - DIAGNOSIS | en |
dc.subject.healththesaurus | GRAM NEGATIVE BACTERIAL INFECTIONS - COMPLICATIONS | en |
dc.date.issuedbrowse | 2010-01-01 | en |
Appears in Collections: | Research Output |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.