Campylobacter culture fails to correctly detect Campylobacter in 30% of positive patient stool specimens compared to non-cultural methods

Janice E. Buss, Michelle Cresse, Susan Doyle, Blake W. Buchan, David W. Craft, Steve Young

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

9 Scopus citations

Abstract

Campylobacter diagnosis is hampered because many laboratories continue to use traditional stool culture, which is slow and suffers false-negative results. This large multi-site study used a composite reference method consisting of a new FDA-cleared immunoassay and four molecular techniques to compare to culture. Prospectively collected patient fecal specimens (1552) were first preliminarily categorized as positive or negative by traditional culture. All specimens were also tested by EIA, and any EIA-positive or culture-discrepant results were further characterized by 16S rRNA qPCR, eight species-specific PCR assays, bidirectional sequencing, and an FDA-cleared multiplex PCR panel. The five non-culture methods showed complete agreement on all positive and discrepant specimens which were then assigned as true-positive or true-negative specimens. Among 47 true-positive specimens, culture incorrectly identified 13 (28%) as negative, and 1 true-negative specimen as positive, for a sensitivity of 72.3%. Unexpectedly, among the true-positive specimens, 4 (8%) were the pathogenic species C. upsaliensis. Culture had a 30% false result rate compared to immunoassay and molecular methods. More accurate results lead to better diagnosis and treatment of suspected campylobacteriosis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1087-1093
Number of pages7
JournalEuropean Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases
Volume38
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2019

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Microbiology (medical)
  • Infectious Diseases

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Campylobacter culture fails to correctly detect Campylobacter in 30% of positive patient stool specimens compared to non-cultural methods'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this