Background: Streptococcal pharyngitis is the most common type of acute bacterial pharyngitis that may have different complications if remained untreated. On the other hand, antibiotics may impose side effects if prescribed for healthy subjects, thus, the appropriate diagnosis of affected individuals is of utmost importance. Previous studies have indicated the accuracy of RAPID TEST for streptococcal pharyngitis, so the present study was conducted to determine the accuracy of RAPID TEST among a group of Iranians.Materials and methods: For this clinical trail, 320 consecutive cases of sore throat were enrolled. RAPID TEST was performed for all cases; however, culture was our gold standard for diagnosis. Finally, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated.Results: The study population included 150 males and 170 females with the mean age of 21 ± 7 years. The positive and negative predictive values of RAPID TEST were 66% and 98.5%, respectively.Conclusion: With respect to the known complications of acute pharyngitis, we strongly recommend Rapis TEST for all patients with sore throat.

Aim and Background: Helicobacter pylori has been recognized as a major risk factor for the development of gastritis, gastric and duodenal ulcers and gastric cancer. Various methods have been known to detect this microorganism and the most common method especially in patients undergoing endoscopy is RAPID urease TEST (RUT), but this TEST is potential to give false positive and negative results. Therefore, using a RAPID, simple but high-precision method is needed to confirm this TEST in laboratories. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of RUT compared to PCR molecular method for the diagnosis of H.pylori.Materials and Methods: This study was carried out on 100 biopsy samples collected from dyspeptic patients attending the endoscopy. The RAPID urease TEST was performed on all samples and the PCR TEST was conducted with designed primers on glmM gene. Diagnostic values of RUT and PCR were evaluated using SPSS software.Results: The product of optimized PCR with 201bp length correctly amplified and observed on electrophoreses gel. Evaluation of the selected primers with various DNA demonstrated high accuracy. Sensitivity of the TEST was 10 CFU with 100% specificity. In this study, 85% of specimens were detected with PCR whereas only 63% of them were detected by the RUT.Conclusion: In this study, it has been approved that PCR can be used for the diagnosis of H.pylori on clinical specimens because it is highly sensitive, specific and can be used on biopsy samples from RUT.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to compare validity of 5 diagnostic TESTs of helicobacter pylori with each other: stool antigen TEST, urea breath TEST (UBT), RAPID urease TEST (RUT), serology and histology.METHODS: A total of 94 patients who had indication of endoscopy entered the study. All of the 5 TESTs were performed for each patient. When the results of at least 2 TESTs were positive (except serology), Helicobacter pylori infection was considered to be positive. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy and area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of these 5 TESTs were determined.RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy and area under ROC curve of these 5 TESTs are as below, respectively. Histology: 89%, 78%, 93%, 91%, 85% and 0.881, RUT: 93%, 75%, 95%, 94%, 86% and 0.831, serology: 50%, 54%, 46%, 61%, 52% and 0.563, stool antigen TEST: 96%, 83%, 98%, 96%, 91% and 0.897, UBT: 89%, 73%, 92%, 90%, 82% and 0.892.CONCLUSIONS: Stool antigen TEST is the most accurate TEST for Helicobacter pylori diagnosis before eradication of these bacteria.

BACKGROUND: Using a RAPID and cost benefote TEST for diagnosing of hydatidosis, a zoonotic, can be beneficial as a diagnostic.OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to design and assess the performance of a dipstick method for diagnosting of cystic echinococcosis.METHODS: Hydatid cyst fluid antigens and homogenized antigens of protoscolex were prepared and its electrophoretic pattern was determined by SDS-PAGE. Afterthen, for providing the hyperimmune serum, rabbits were injected by hydatid cyst fluid and protoscolex antigens along with complete freund adjuant and then incomplete freund adjuant. The immune sera were evaluated by dot ELISA. Dipstick was prepared based on nitrocellulose paper as solid phase and coated with antigens which were dotted in the upper surface of the nitrocellulose strip. PBS was used as negative control and rabbit sera non infected were used as positive control. As a negative control the lower part of the strip was coated by PBS. Each strip was floated in the serum (1:100 dilution) for 7min, washed for 7min and floated in the second antibody 7min. Afterthen, they were washed and incubated in chromogen/substrate diaminobenzidin for 2min to show the coloured band at the site of coated antigen.RESULTS: Our findings revealed 15 protein fractions in fluid antigens and 9 protein band in protoscolex antigens at the range of 29-130 kDa and 25-90 kDa, respectively. Meanwhile, the protoscolex antigens at in 1:10 dilution and fluid antigens at in 1:20 dilution showed the best results to diagnose hyper immune serum of 1:10 dilution.CONCLUSIONS: This RAPID Dipstick assay TEST can be considered as a suitable immunodiagnostic TEST for hydatid cyst disease; however further investigations should be done to improve its specificity through preparing highly purified antigens.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent technologic improvements in identifying mycobacterium tuberculosis, we are still facing problems in RAPID diagnosis of tuberculosis. The objective of this study is to determine the diagnostic value of a new RAPID screening TEST (Patho-TB™) for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis.METHODS: Between September 2006 to August 2007, 178 patients were enrolled in the study who were finally classified into two groups; a group of documented pulmonary tuberculosis (n=67) and a group of non-tuberculous pulmonary infection (n=111). Patho-TB™ TEST, Ziehl-Neelsen staining and culture were done on all specimens.RESULTS: Of all, 43 patients with pulmonary tuberculosis were sputum smear positive for acid fast bacilli and the rest were smear negative. Mean age of the patients was 59.8±16.1 years and 44% of them were men. The results of Patho- TB™ TEST were positive in 40 of smear positive and 20 of smear negative tuberculous patients and 33 cases of nontuberculous control group. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy of Patho- TB™ TEST were estimated 89.5%, 70.2%, 64.5%, 91.7% and 77.5%, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: According to the present study it would be suggested that Patho-TB™ TEST could be a RAPID and inexpensive method for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis, given by its high sensitivity and negative predictive value.Concerning the high number of false positive results, using a confirmatory diagnostic procedure is mandatory.

A simple and RAPID immunoassay of morphine based on latex agglutination inhibition reaction has been developed. Morphine-6-succinat is a morphine derivative, and its BSA conjugates were synthesized and characterized. The hapten density in the conjugate was determined spectroscopically to be 8.2 mol/mol of BSA. It was found that morphine-6- succinyl-BSA exhibits favorable features in terms of immunogenicity and immunochemical specificity. A latex agglutination inhibition-reaction TEST (LAIRT) using DEAE-Cellulose purified rabbit IgG against morphine-6- succinyl-BSA was found to give a sensitivity of 300 mg/ml of morphine. Various commonly used drugs and narcotics at concentrations 0.1 mg/ml or less did not interfere with the TEST. Interference by normal urine was observed but it could be eliminated by the inclusion of 0.78% normal rabbit serum. The sensitized latex was stable at 4°C for at least 6 months .It was also stable to lyophilization and to at least four cycles of freezing and thawing. The total TEST time was 5 minutes. A comparison was made between the LAIRT and EMIT on 100 urine samples collected from people who referred to governmental narcotic clinic (Reference Lab. Tehran, Iran). While the EMIT showed 84 positives and 16negatives, the LAIRT gave 68 positives and 32 negatives. The two TESTs showed no significant difference (P<0.05).