Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:36:13.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Serological Diagnosis of Typhoid and Paratyphoid Fevers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

J. Smith
J. Smith
Affiliation:
From theCity Hospital Laboratory, Aberdeen.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The analysis of the serological results of blood specimens submitted during the course of the past 2 years for the Widal reaction has been made.

The sera from cases of typhoid and paratyphoid fever were examined in particular for their agglutinin content for the “H” and “O” antigens of B. typhosus and B. paratyphosus B. The results obtained indicate that it is essential to use the “O” antigen of B. typhosus, but no particular advantage has been derived, from the point of view of early diagnosis, from the use of B. paratyphosus B “O” antigen.

A comparison of the value of suitable living and killed antigens has been made. Either type of antigen appears to be equally effective, but for convenience and stability the suspensions issued by the Standards Laboratory, Oxford, have proved entirely satisfactory.

Cases showing the serological difficulties which arise when a mixed specific and non-specific form of B. paratyphosus B “H” antigen is used are described.

The author is indebted to the Medical Eesearch Council for a personal grant, and to Miss N. A. Davidson for much technical assistance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , April 1932 , pp. 143 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1932

References

REFERENCES

Andrewes, F. W. (1922). J. Path. and Bact. 25, 505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arkwright, J. A. (1921). J. Path. and Bact. 24, 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnet, F. (1924). Brit. J. Exp. Path. 5, 251.Google Scholar
Dreyer, G. and Inman, A. C. (1917). Lancet, 1, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreyer, G. and Walker, E. W. R. (1916). Lancet, ii, 419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreyer, G., Walker, E. W. A. and Gibson, A. G. (1915). Lancet, i, 324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. (1924). J. Immun. 9, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. (1929). J. Hygiene, 28, 418.Google Scholar
Felix, A. (1930). Lancet, 1, 505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. and Mitzenmacher, F. (1918). Wien. klin. Wochenschr. 31, 988.Google Scholar
Felix, A. and Olitzki, L. (1928). J. Hygiene, 28, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, A. D. (1929). J. Hygiene, 28, 376.Google Scholar
Gardner, A. D., Hobson, F. G. and Stenhouse, G. (1930). Lancet, i, 182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manifold, J. A. (1930). J. Roy. Army Med. Corps, 54, 401.Google Scholar
Pijper, A. (1930). J. Hygiene, 29, 380.Google Scholar
Schutze, H. (1930). Brit. J. Exp. Path. 11, 34.Google Scholar
Stuart, G. and Kirkorian, K. S. (1928). J. Hygiene, 28, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topley, W. W. C. and Wilson, G. S. (1929). Principles of Bacteriology and Immunity, London, 2, 999.Google Scholar
Weil, E. and Felix, A. (1920). Ztschr. f. Immunitätsf. 29, 24.Google Scholar
White, P. B. (1926). Med. Res. Counc., Spec. Rep. No. 103.Google Scholar
White, P. B. (1929). System of Bacteriology, London, 4, 86.Google Scholar
Whitehead, N. T. (1930). J. Roy. Army Med. Corps, 55, 81.Google Scholar