Determining Diagnostic Sensitivity: A Comparison of Rose Bengal Test, Coombs Gel Test, ELISA and Bacterial Culture in Brucellosis Diagnosis—Analyzing Clinical Effectiveness in Light of Inflammatory Markers

ArticleAçık Erişim

Özet

Background: Brucellosis is a zoonotic infectious disease. It is estimated that the number of cases reported today is much less than the actual number. We still have difficulty in diagnosing the disease and its organ involvement. In this sense, new approaches that can be useful in clinical practice are required, and we aimed to evaluate this situation in our study. Methods: 171 of 213 patients followed in our center between January 2021 and April 2024 were included in the study. A total of 150 patients were included in the study as a control group. Rose Bengal test (RBT), Coombs gel test (CGT), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and automated blood culture were used for diagnosing brucellosis. Complete blood count, sedimentation, C-reactive protein, and biochemical parameters were obtained. Inflammation markers such as neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio, platelet–lymphocyte ratio, systemic immune-inflammation index, and systemic inflammation response index were calculated. Results: The most successful results in the diagnosis were ELISA (89.4%), RBT (88.3%), CGT (83%), and blood culture (34.8%). For diagnosing sacroiliitis and spondylodiscitis, instead of resorting to expensive methods like magnetic resonance, a combination of ELISA positivity with elevated acute phase reactants and inflammatory markers could be significantly instructive. Conclusions: Optimizing diagnostic algorithms and exploring novel diagnostic approaches, such as inflammatory markers, hold promise for improving diagnosis and management. © 2024 by the authors.

Anahtar Kelimeler

RDL Kalıcı Bağlantı (PID)
https://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/11842Resmi atıflarda kullanılan kalıcı adres
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14141546Yayıncı resmi DOI adresi
Tam Kayıt
AlanDeğerDil
dc.contributor.authorBarkay, Orçun
dc.contributor.authorKarakeçili, Faruk
dc.contributor.authorBinay, Umut Devrim
dc.contributor.authorAkyüz, Sümeyye
dc.date.accessioned2026-10-18T20:26:50.299317834Z
dc.date.available2026-10-18T20:26:50.299317834Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.description.abstractBackground: Brucellosis is a zoonotic infectious disease. It is estimated that the number of cases reported today is much less than the actual number. We still have difficulty in diagnosing the disease and its organ involvement. In this sense, new approaches that can be useful in clinical practice are required, and we aimed to evaluate this situation in our study. Methods: 171 of 213 patients followed in our center between January 2021 and April 2024 were included in the study. A total of 150 patients were included in the study as a control group. Rose Bengal test (RBT), Coombs gel test (CGT), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and automated blood culture were used for diagnosing brucellosis. Complete blood count, sedimentation, C-reactive protein, and biochemical parameters were obtained. Inflammation markers such as neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio, platelet–lymphocyte ratio, systemic immune-inflammation index, and systemic inflammation response index were calculated. Results: The most successful results in the diagnosis were ELISA (89.4%), RBT (88.3%), CGT (83%), and blood culture (34.8%). For diagnosing sacroiliitis and spondylodiscitis, instead of resorting to expensive methods like magnetic resonance, a combination of ELISA positivity with elevated acute phase reactants and inflammatory markers could be significantly instructive. Conclusions: Optimizing diagnostic algorithms and exploring novel diagnostic approaches, such as inflammatory markers, hold promise for improving diagnosis and management. © 2024 by the authors.
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/diagnostics14141546
dc.identifier.eissn2075-4418
dc.identifier.issn2075-4418
dc.identifier.issue14
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC11275345
dc.identifier.pmid39061683
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85199906310
dc.identifier.startpage1546
dc.identifier.urihttps://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/11842
dc.identifier.volume14
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001276722700001
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherMultidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)
dc.relation.ispartofDiagnostics
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectbrucellosis
dc.subjectCoombs gel test
dc.subjectELISA
dc.subjectNLR
dc.subjectPLR
dc.subjectRose Bengal
dc.subjectsacroiliitis SII
dc.subjectSIRI
dc.subjectspondylodiscitis
dc.subjectacute phase protein
dc.subjectbiological marker
dc.subjectC reactive protein
dc.subjectgel
dc.subjectadult
dc.subjectalgorithm
dc.subjectArticle
dc.subjectbacterium culture
dc.subjectbiochemical analysis
dc.subjectblood cell count
dc.subjectblood culture
dc.subjectcase control study
dc.subjectclinical effectiveness
dc.subjectclinical practice
dc.subjectcontrolled study
dc.subjectCoombs test
dc.subjectenzyme linked immunosorbent assay
dc.subjectfemale
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjectinflammation
dc.subjectintervertebral disk degeneration
dc.titleDetermining Diagnostic Sensitivity: A Comparison of Rose Bengal Test, Coombs Gel Test, ELISA and Bacterial Culture in Brucellosis Diagnosis—Analyzing Clinical Effectiveness in Light of Inflammatory Markers
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
rdl.citation.scopus5
rdl.citation.wos5
rdl.departmentDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University, 24100 Erzincan, Türkiye. | Department of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University, 24100 Erzincan, Türkiye.
rdl.oa.statusgold
rdl.source.indexSCOPUS
rdl.source.indexWOS
rdl.source.indexPUBMED
rdl.wos.indexScience Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)