You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 268 No. 6, August 12, 1992 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Toward Optimal Laboratory Use
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (8)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Elementary School Students' Performance With Two ELISA Test Systems

Daron G. Ferris, MD; Paul M. Fischer, MD

JAMA. 1992;268(6):766-770.


Abstract

Objective.
—To examine analytic performance by previously untrained and inexperienced subjects using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) tests developed for decentralized laboratories. Performance variability between tests assigned to the "simple" and "moderately complex" Health Care Financing Administration laboratory levels was evaluated.

Design.
—A nonrandomized trial of the Surecell Strep-A chorionic gonadotropin ELISA tests. Each subject processed nine unknown specimens (three negative, three weakly positive, and three strongly positive) for each ELISA test. Subjects were blinded to expected test results.

Setting.
—An elementary school.

Subjects.
—A convenience sample of 52 students enrolled in the sixth and seventh grades. This age group was chosen because of their ability to generally comprehend instructions and remain attentive to the testing task.

Interventions.
—Subjects were either self-trained by reading package insert directions or trained by a manufacturer's sales representative.

Main Outcome Measures.
—Performance was measured as the percentage of correct test results for the unknown specimens. The sensitivity and specificity for each test by operator group were calculated.

Results.
—Subjects demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 97.1% and specificity of 94.7% for human chorionic gonadotropin unknown specimens and a 95.9% sensitivity and 96.8% specificity for group A steptococcus unknown specimens. No significant differences between the self-trained group and the representative-trained group were observed for either group A streptococcus or human chorionic gonadotropin tests. Performance was so high with the first specimen that improvement over time (ie, a "learning curve") could not be demonstrated.

Conclusion.
—These ELISA test systems are able to achieve high levels of performance by subjects with no formal laboratory background, no previous method specific experience, and limited self-training.

(JAMA. 1992;268:766-770)



Author Affiliations

From the Department of Family Medicine, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.


Footnotes

Reprint requests to Department of Family Medicine, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA 30912 (Dr Ferris).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Rapid Diagnosis of Pharyngitis Caused by Group A Streptococci
Gerber and Shulman
Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2004;17:571-580.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Accuracy of Physicians' Office Laboratory Results
Huffstutter et al.
JAMA 1998;280:129-132.
FULL TEXT  

Problems in Laboratory Testing in Primary Care
Nutting et al.
JAMA 1996;275:635-639.
ABSTRACT  

Sensitivity of Rapid Antigen Detection Tests for Chlamydia trachomatis Screening
Ferris et al.
JAMA 1995;273:917-918.
ABSTRACT  

A Year of Mixed Messages for Family Practice
Bowman
Arch Fam Med 1993;2:595-596.
ABSTRACT  

Waived and Nonwaived Tests: The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act
Rosenzweig
JAMA 1993;269:587-588.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1992 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.