000 02340cam a2200349 a 4500
003 EG-GiCUC
005 20250223031942.0
008 180312s2017 ua dh f m 000 0 eng d
040 _aEG-GiCUC
_beng
_cEG-GiCUC
041 0 _aeng
049 _aDeposite
097 _aPh.D
099 _aCai01.11.19.Ph.D.2017.Sa.C
100 0 _aSara Elhossain Aly Reda Mohamed
245 1 0 _aComparative study between different laboratory methods in the diagnosis of human brucellosis /
_cSara Elhossain Aly Reda Mohamed ; Supervised Mona Abdelwahab Abdelmessih , Abdelmeguid Kassem , Lamiaa Abdelfattah Ahmed Madkour
246 1 5 _aدراسة مقارنة للطرق المعملية المختلفه لتشخيص مرض الحمى المالطيه فى الانسان
260 _aCairo :
_bSara Elhossain Aly Reda Mohamed ,
_c2017
300 _a137 P. :
_bcharts , facsimiles ;
_c25cm
502 _aThesis (Ph.D.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Medicine - Department of Microbiology and Immunology
520 _aThe aim of the study was to compare the performance of different serological tests in the diagnosis of brucellosis, considering quantitative real time PCR (qPCR) as the reference test. Quantitative real time PCR was positive for Brucella DNA in 65% out of 100 serum samples. Both the standard tube agglutination test (STAT) and rose bengal (RB) test revealed high sensitivity in the detection of brucellosis (95% and 89% respectively). The positive predictive value (PPV) of STAT was 65%, while RB and ELISA had the same PPV (64%). On the other hand, the negative predictive values were 40%, 22% and 33% for STAT, RB and ELISA respectively. However, the specificity of both STAT and RB was surprisingly low (6%). On the other hand, ELISA had a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 23%. These results highlight the value of ELISA as a rapid and reliable tool for the diagnosis of brucellosis particularly in endemic areas
530 _aIssued also as CD
653 4 _aBrucellosis
653 4 _aELISA
653 4 _aqPCR
700 0 _aAbdelmeguid Kassem ,
_eSupervisor
700 0 _aLamiaa Abdelfattah Ahmed Madkour ,
_eSupervisor
700 0 _aMona Abdelwahab Abdemessih ,
_eSupervisor
856 _uhttp://172.23.153.220/th.pdf
905 _aNazla
_eRevisor
905 _aSamia
_eCataloger
942 _2ddc
_cTH
999 _c65418
_d65418