Comparison of multiplex syndromic panel tests with conventional methods in the detection of gastroenteritis agents
Introduction: We aimed to evaluate the performance of multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based FTD gastroenteritis kit (Fast-Track Diagnostics, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg) and QIAstat-Dx gastrointestinal panel (Q-GP; Hilden, Germany) in the detection of different enteric pathogens. Metho...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Infection in Developing Countries |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://jidc.org/index.php/journal/article/view/19386 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849313710073446400 |
|---|---|
| author | Özlem Aydemir Hande Toptan Elif Ö Şahin Hüseyin A Terzi Gökçen Ormanoğlu Mehmet Köroğlu Mustafa Altındiş |
| author_facet | Özlem Aydemir Hande Toptan Elif Ö Şahin Hüseyin A Terzi Gökçen Ormanoğlu Mehmet Köroğlu Mustafa Altındiş |
| author_sort | Özlem Aydemir |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
Introduction: We aimed to evaluate the performance of multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based FTD gastroenteritis kit (Fast-Track Diagnostics, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg) and QIAstat-Dx gastrointestinal panel (Q-GP; Hilden, Germany) in the detection of different enteric pathogens.
Methodology: The molecular test results of 320 stool samples from patients with a preliminary diagnosis of infectious gastroenteritis between July 2019 and October 2023 were retrospectively examined, and compared with conventional test results.
Results: A single pathogen was detected in 144 samples, and more than 1 pathogen was detected in 22 samples with FTD and QIAstat-Dx GP. Salmonella was isolated by culture in 30% samples that were detected as Salmonella-positive by PCR. Shigella, Campylobacter, verotoxin producing Escherichia coli, Shiga-like toxin producing E. coli, enteropathogenic E. coli, enteroaggregative E. coli, and enterotoxigenic E. coli were detected by molecular tests; but could not be isolated in stool culture. Rotavirus was detected by PCR in 11.1% samples; antigen test was positive in 20% samples that were adenovirus-positive based on molecular tests. Five percent of the samples in which C. difficile was detected by molecular tests were determined to be toxin A/B positive by immunochromatographic test. G. lamblia trophozoites were seen in direct microscopic evaluation in samples that were identified as G. lamblia positive by PCR.
Conclusions: The multiplex gastrointestinal pathogen panel test is a simpler and faster test than traditional microbiology methods. However, the effect of these test results on the patient`s diagnosis and treatment needs to be investigated. More studies are needed to compare standard and molecular methods.
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-124b4d7176a2472aad8e011f94aa8a07 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1972-2680 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Infection in Developing Countries |
| spelling | doaj-art-124b4d7176a2472aad8e011f94aa8a072025-08-20T03:52:42ZengThe Journal of Infection in Developing CountriesJournal of Infection in Developing Countries1972-26802025-01-01190110.3855/jidc.19386Comparison of multiplex syndromic panel tests with conventional methods in the detection of gastroenteritis agentsÖzlem Aydemir0Hande Toptan1Elif Ö Şahin2Hüseyin A Terzi3Gökçen Ormanoğlu4Mehmet Köroğlu5Mustafa Altındiş6Department of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, TürkiyeMedical Microbiology Laboratory, Sakarya University Training and Research Hospital, Ministry of Health, Sakarya, TürkiyeMedical Microbiology Laboratory, Sakarya University Training and Research Hospital, Ministry of Health, Sakarya, TürkiyeMedical Microbiology Laboratory, Sakarya University Training and Research Hospital, Ministry of Health, Sakarya, TürkiyeDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, TürkiyeDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, TürkiyeDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Türkiye Introduction: We aimed to evaluate the performance of multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based FTD gastroenteritis kit (Fast-Track Diagnostics, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg) and QIAstat-Dx gastrointestinal panel (Q-GP; Hilden, Germany) in the detection of different enteric pathogens. Methodology: The molecular test results of 320 stool samples from patients with a preliminary diagnosis of infectious gastroenteritis between July 2019 and October 2023 were retrospectively examined, and compared with conventional test results. Results: A single pathogen was detected in 144 samples, and more than 1 pathogen was detected in 22 samples with FTD and QIAstat-Dx GP. Salmonella was isolated by culture in 30% samples that were detected as Salmonella-positive by PCR. Shigella, Campylobacter, verotoxin producing Escherichia coli, Shiga-like toxin producing E. coli, enteropathogenic E. coli, enteroaggregative E. coli, and enterotoxigenic E. coli were detected by molecular tests; but could not be isolated in stool culture. Rotavirus was detected by PCR in 11.1% samples; antigen test was positive in 20% samples that were adenovirus-positive based on molecular tests. Five percent of the samples in which C. difficile was detected by molecular tests were determined to be toxin A/B positive by immunochromatographic test. G. lamblia trophozoites were seen in direct microscopic evaluation in samples that were identified as G. lamblia positive by PCR. Conclusions: The multiplex gastrointestinal pathogen panel test is a simpler and faster test than traditional microbiology methods. However, the effect of these test results on the patient`s diagnosis and treatment needs to be investigated. More studies are needed to compare standard and molecular methods. https://jidc.org/index.php/journal/article/view/19386infectious gastroenteritismultiplex real-time PCRconventional diagnostic techniques |
| spellingShingle | Özlem Aydemir Hande Toptan Elif Ö Şahin Hüseyin A Terzi Gökçen Ormanoğlu Mehmet Köroğlu Mustafa Altındiş Comparison of multiplex syndromic panel tests with conventional methods in the detection of gastroenteritis agents Journal of Infection in Developing Countries infectious gastroenteritis multiplex real-time PCR conventional diagnostic techniques |
| title | Comparison of multiplex syndromic panel tests with conventional methods in the detection of gastroenteritis agents |
| title_full | Comparison of multiplex syndromic panel tests with conventional methods in the detection of gastroenteritis agents |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of multiplex syndromic panel tests with conventional methods in the detection of gastroenteritis agents |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of multiplex syndromic panel tests with conventional methods in the detection of gastroenteritis agents |
| title_short | Comparison of multiplex syndromic panel tests with conventional methods in the detection of gastroenteritis agents |
| title_sort | comparison of multiplex syndromic panel tests with conventional methods in the detection of gastroenteritis agents |
| topic | infectious gastroenteritis multiplex real-time PCR conventional diagnostic techniques |
| url | https://jidc.org/index.php/journal/article/view/19386 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ozlemaydemir comparisonofmultiplexsyndromicpaneltestswithconventionalmethodsinthedetectionofgastroenteritisagents AT handetoptan comparisonofmultiplexsyndromicpaneltestswithconventionalmethodsinthedetectionofgastroenteritisagents AT elifosahin comparisonofmultiplexsyndromicpaneltestswithconventionalmethodsinthedetectionofgastroenteritisagents AT huseyinaterzi comparisonofmultiplexsyndromicpaneltestswithconventionalmethodsinthedetectionofgastroenteritisagents AT gokcenormanoglu comparisonofmultiplexsyndromicpaneltestswithconventionalmethodsinthedetectionofgastroenteritisagents AT mehmetkoroglu comparisonofmultiplexsyndromicpaneltestswithconventionalmethodsinthedetectionofgastroenteritisagents AT mustafaaltındis comparisonofmultiplexsyndromicpaneltestswithconventionalmethodsinthedetectionofgastroenteritisagents |