RESUMO
The diagnosis and epidemiological studies of Q fever depend on serology. Among the main methods employed are the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the immunofluorescent assay test (IFAT). We show that two commercial assays representing the two methods with two different cut-off titres can lead to significant differences in diagnostic and seroprevalence estimates. This in turn emphasizes the need for a standardized gold method to compare the various assays; whether this standard is 'in-house' or commercially obtained.
Assuntos
Coxiella burnetii/isolamento & purificação , Ensaio de Imunoadsorção Enzimática/métodos , Imunofluorescência/métodos , Febre Q/diagnóstico , Coxiella burnetii/imunologia , Ensaio de Imunoadsorção Enzimática/normas , Imunofluorescência/normas , Humanos , Febre Q/epidemiologia , Febre Q/imunologia , Febre Q/microbiologia , Valores de Referência , Estudos SoroepidemiológicosAssuntos
Viagem , Trypanosoma brucei gambiense , Tripanossomíase Africana/epidemiologia , Doença Aguda , Adulto , Animais , Antígenos de Protozoários/sangue , Mordeduras e Picadas/parasitologia , Doenças Endêmicas , Feminino , Humanos , Tanzânia/epidemiologia , Tripanossomíase Africana/parasitologia , Moscas Tsé-Tsé/parasitologiaRESUMO
Nine expert drivers operated an instrumented vehicle in tests over a highway at night after being treated with diazepam (5 and 10 milligrams), a placebo, and nothing. They reacted to 10 milligrams of diazepam with increased lateral position variability. Potentially dangerous impairment was inferred from the reactions of some subjects.