A Comparative Study of the Typhidot (Dot-EIA) versus Widal Test in Diagnosis of Typhoid Fever among Egyptian Patients

HTML  XML Download Download as PDF (Size: 371KB)  PP. 91-98  
DOI: 10.4236/ojgas.2019.96011    1,642 Downloads   7,446 Views  Citations

ABSTRACT

Background and Study Aim: Typhoid (Enteric) fever is a systemic infection caused by Salmonella Typhi and Salmonella Paratyphi. It is endemic in the developing countries including Egypt. Different diagnostic tools can achieve diagnosis and include cultures from the blood, stool, bone marrow, rarely urine for isolation of the organism. Antibody detection by Widal test and relatively recent typhoid are also used. The current study aimed at comparing the most commonly used antibody detection Widal test with the rapid antibody detection typhidot for diagnosis of typhoid fever among Egyptian adults. Patients and Methods: The study included 140 patients who are presented with picture suggestive of typhoid fever. Confirmed cases after the blood culture were included in the final analysis. Widal and typhidot tests were performed in all patients and were compared for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy. Results: 45 patients out of 140 were diagnosed as typhoid fever by blood culture. Out of them, Widal test was positive in 39 patients with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of 86.7%, 89.5%, 79.5%, 93.4% and 88.5% respectively. Typhidot test was positive in 42 patients with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of 93.3%, 90.6%, 82.3%, 96.6%, and 91.4% respectively (P = 0.00). Conclusions: Typhidot test is reliable, simple highly sensitive and specific test in diagnosing typhoid fever when compared with Widal test.

Share and Cite:

Salama, R. and Said, N. (2019) A Comparative Study of the Typhidot (Dot-EIA) versus Widal Test in Diagnosis of Typhoid Fever among Egyptian Patients. Open Journal of Gastroenterology, 9, 91-98. doi: 10.4236/ojgas.2019.96011.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.