We did not detect differences in disease behavior, severity, or joint EIM by race. Although African American patients were more likely to have ileocolonic or colonic disease, these factors did not affect disease behavior or severity.
The use of culture-independent diagnostic tests (CIDTs), such as stool antigen tests, as standalone tests for the detection of Campylobacter in stool is increasing. We conducted a prospective, multicenter study to evaluate the performance of stool antigen CIDTs compared to culture and PCR for Campylobacter detection. Between July and October 2010, we tested 2,767 stool specimens from patients with gastrointestinal illness with the following methods: four types of Campylobacter selective media, four commercial stool antigen assays, and a commercial PCR assay. Illnesses from which specimens were positive by one or more culture media or at least one CIDT and PCR were designated "cases." A total of 95 specimens (3.4%) met the case definition. The stool antigen CIDTs ranged from 79.6% to 87.6% in sensitivity, 95.9 to 99.5% in specificity, and 41.3 to 84.3% in positive predictive value. Culture alone detected 80/89 (89.9% sensitivity) Campylobacter jejuni/Campylobacter coli-positive cases. Of the 209 noncases that were positive by at least one CIDT, only one (0.48%) was positive by all four stool antigen tests, and 73% were positive by just one stool antigen test. The questionable relevance of unconfirmed positive stool antigen CIDT results was supported by the finding that noncases were less likely than cases to have gastrointestinal symptoms. Thus, while the tests were convenient to use, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of Campylobacter stool antigen tests were highly variable. Given the relatively low incidence of Campylobacter disease and the generally poor diagnostic test characteristics, this study calls into question the use of commercially available stool antigen CIDTs as standalone tests for direct detection of Campylobacter in stool. Campylobacter infection continues to be a major public health problem. Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli are pathogens transmitted commonly through food, causing an estimated 1.3 million cases of illness per year in the United States (1), and yet diagnosis can be challenging because the organism is difficult to isolate, grow, and identify. Recent reports describing clinical laboratory practices for Campylobacter diagnostics in Pennsylvania (2) and the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) sites (3) highlight the wide range of testing practices in use; currently, no best-practice clinical or public health laboratory guidelines exist for laboratory diagnosis of Campylobacter infections. Direct plating onto a Campylobacter selective medium, followed by incubation at 42°C under microaerobic conditions for 72 h, has long been considered the "gold standard" for diagnosis (4).The use of culture-independent diagnostic tests (CIDTs) for Campylobacter testing on stool samples is increasing, which may have important implications for both patient management and public health surveillance efforts (5). Stool antigen tests to directly detect Campylobacter in fecal samples are fast and generate sameday results, but concerns regarding speci...
The combined impact of community-level environmental and socioeconomic factors on the risk of campylobacteriosis were evaluated.Campylobacter case data (2002-2010, n=3,694) In zip codes that were 100% rural, incidence rates of campylobacteriosis were 6 times (IRR=6.18; 95%CI=3.19-11.97) that of urban zip codes. In zip codes with broiler chicken operations, incidence rates were 1.45 times that of zip codes without broilers (IRR=1.45, 95%CI=1.34-1.58). Higher rates were also observed for zip codes that were predominantly white and had high median incomes. For my daughters, whose cheerful patience and boundless appreciation have shown me the wisdom that endurance can reveal.Fall down seven times, stand up eight.iii
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.