Key result
Rapid coagglutination tests demonstrated 100% sensitivity for MSS strains and 99-100% for MRS strains, but false-positive rates of 2-10% make their clinical usefulness problematic.
Why the study?
Do rapid coagglutination tests accurately differentiate Staphylococcus aureus from other staphylococcal species compared to standard coagulase and nuclease tests?
Population
300 staphylococcal strains
Comparison
Three commercial coagglutination tests vs Slide coagulase, tube coagulase, and…
Design
Other
Authors
Loading...
High false-positive rates advise against routine use of rapid coagglutination tests; leaves open their optimization versus standard methods in prospective lab validation.
Cross-Sectional (n=300)
Do rapid coagglutination tests accurately differentiate Staphylococcus aureus from other staphylococcal species compared to standard coagulase and nuclease tests?
The high false-positive rates of rapid coagglutination tests make their clinical usefulness problematic, supporting the continued use of tube coagulase and thermostable nuclease tests for differentiating S. aureus.
Woolfrey et al. (1984) conducted a cross-sectional in Staphylococcus aureus identification (n=300). Rapid coagglutination tests (Sero-STAT, Accu-Staph, and Staphyloslide) vs. Slide coagulase, tube coagulase, and thermostable nuclease tests was evaluated on Sensitivity and false-positive rates for differentiating S. aureus from other staphylococci. Rapid coagglutination tests demonstrated 100% sensitivity for MSS strains and 99-100% for MRS strains, but false-positive rates of 2-10% make their clinical usefulness problematic.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: