The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of commercial kits for detection of cryptococcal antigen
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cryptococcosis in the era of AIDS--100 years after the discovery of Cryptococcus neoformans
Mitchell, T. G., & Perfect, J. R. (1995) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.8.4.515 · Cited by 1,213
Maziarz, E. K., & Perfect, J. R. (2016) · Infectious Disease Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.idc.2015.10.006 · Cited by 698
Jarvis, J. N., Percival, A., Bauman, S., Pelfrey, J., Meintjes, G., Williams, G. N., Longley, N., Harrison, T. S., & Kozel, T. R. (2011) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/cir613 · Cited by 295
Marchetti, O., Lamoth, F., Mikulska, M., Viscoli, C., Verweij, P., Bretagne, S., & Groups, A. T. E. C. O. I. I. L. (. L. W. (2012) · Bone Marrow Transplantation · doi:10.1038/bmt.2011.178 · Cited by 275
Hansen, J., Slechta, E. S., Gates-Hollingsworth, M. A., Neary, B., Barker, A. P., Bauman, S., Kozel, T. R., & Hanson, K. E. (2013) · Clinical and Vaccine Immunology · doi:10.1128/cvi.00536-12 · Cited by 130
Metadata
- Authors
- Tanner, D. C., Weinstein, M. P., Fedorciw, B., Joho, K. L., Thorpe, J. J., & Reller, L.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for 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.