Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 236

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of commercial kits for detection of cryptococcal antigen

Open access
Tanner, D C, Weinstein, M P, Fedorciw, B, Joho, K L, Thorpe, J J, Reller, L·1994·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

Although kits to detect cryptococcal antigen are used widely to diagnose cryptococcal infection, the comparative performance of commercially available assays has not been evaluated in the past decade. Therefore, we compared the sensitives and specificities of five commercially available kits for detecting cryptococcal antigen (four latex agglutination test kits--Calas [Meridian Diagnostics])--Crypto-LA [International Biological Labs], Myco-Immune [MicroScan], and Immy [Immunomycologics]--and an enzyme immunoassay kit, Premier [Meridian Diagnostics]) with culture for the diagnosis of cryptococcal meningitis and fungemia. Of 182 cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and 90 serum samples submitted for cryptococcal antigen and fungal culture, 49 (19 and 30 samples, respectively) from 20 patients had a culture positive for Cryptococcus neoformans. For CSF specimens, the sensitivities and specificities of all kits were comparable (sensitivity, 93 to 100%; specificity, 93 to 98%). There was a significant difference in sensitivities of the kits when serum samples were tested with the International Biological Labs and MicroScan kits, which do not pretreat serum with pronase. These kits were less sensitive (sensitivity, 83%) than the Immy and Meridian latex kits (sensitivity, 97%), which do pretreat with pronase. The sensitivity of the Meridian enzyme immunoassay kit was comparable to that of the pronase-containing latex kits. These kits were of equivalent specificities (93 to 100%) when testing serum. Some of the currently available kits have limitations that need to be recognized for proper interpretation of results. Specifically, the use of pronase on serum samples reduces the number of false-positive results, and a titer of < or = 1:4 can be a false-positive result when CSF samples are being tested.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.32.7.1680-1684.1994

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 236

Metadata

Authors
Tanner, D. C., Weinstein, M. P., Fedorciw, B., Joho, K. L., Thorpe, J. J., & Reller, L.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
1994-07
Volume
32
Issue
7
Pages
1680-1684
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W1722495726
Cited by
236
References
0
FWCI
1.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of commercial kits for detection of cryptococcal antigen. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.32.7.1680-1684.1994
The paper
Tanner, D. C., Weinstein, M. P., Fedorciw, B., Joho, K. L., Thorpe, J. J., & Reller, L. (1994). Comparison of commercial kits for detection of cryptococcal antigen. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.32.7.1680-1684.1994

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.