Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:35:10.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of New In Vitro Diagnostic Test Procedures in Clinical Microbiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

John A. Washington
John A. Washington*
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
*
Department of Microbiology, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH 44195
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In vitro diagnostic products (IVDs) for infectious diseases are becoming available commercially at an ever-increasing rate. Aggressive marketing of such products often creates pressure on the laboratory to use IVDs, sometimes even before independent evaluations can be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

IVDs potentially offer simplicity and speed, particularly in detecting microorganisms that have fastidious growth requirements or that are simply not cultivable with currently available methodology. In some instances, IVDs may obviate the need for culture of more common microorganisms and may thereby allow testing to be done in physicians' offices and perhaps ultimately in the home.

Type
Special Sections
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , February 1989 , pp. 77 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Schwartz, JS, Dans, PE, Kinosian, BP: Human immunodeficiency virus test evaluation, performance, and use: Proposals to make good tests better. JAMA 1988; 259:2574–2579.Google Scholar
2. Ramsohoff, DF, Feinstein, AR: Problems of spectrum bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med 1978; 299:926–931.Google Scholar
3. Gerber, MA, Randolph, MF, Chanatry, J. et al: Antigen detection for streptococcal pharyngitis: Evaluation of sensitivity with respect to true infections. I Pediatr 1986: 108:654–658.10.1016/S0022-3476(86)81036-8Google Scholar
4. Vecehio, TJ: Predictive value of a single diagnostic test in unselected populations. N Engl J Med 1966: 274:1171–1173.10.1056/NEJM196605262742104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Braitman, LE: Confidence intervals extract clinically useful information from data. Ann Intern Med 1988; 108:296–298.10.7326/0003-4819-108-2-296CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Crawford, SW, Bowden, RA, Hackman, RC. et al: Rapid detection of cytomegalovirus pulmonary infection by bronehoalveolar lavage and centrifugation culture. Aun Intern Med 1988; 108: 180–185.10.7326/0003-4819-108-2-180Google Scholar