| pubmed-article:8307044 | rdf:type | pubmed:Citation | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0032285 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0085504 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0025663 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0011900 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0220825 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0014499 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0016132 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0205473 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:issue | 10 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:dateCreated | 1994-3-11 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:abstractText | A complement fixation (CF) test, a micro-immunofluorescence (micro-IF) test and an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) using Re-lipopolysaccharide as antigen were compared in the diagnosis of chlamydial infection in 136 mainly elderly patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia during a Chlamydia pneumoniae epidemic in Finland in 1986-1987. Chlamydial pneumonia was diagnosed in 58 (42.6%) of the 136 pneumonia patients; 44 (75.9%) of them could be shown by micro-IF to be caused by Chlamydia pneumoniae, three by Chlamydia psittaci and four by Chlamydia spp. Only 5 (11.4%) of 44 patients with Chlamydia pneumoniae pneumonia were IgM-positive, indicating that the majority of cases were reinfections. In this population of mainly elderly patients the CF test was insensitive, being positive in only 6 (10.3%) of 58 cases of chlamydial pneumonia. The EIA detected 72.4% of cases and micro-IF 87.9% of cases (including infections with Chlamydia pneumoniae, Chlamydia psittaci and Chlamydia spp.). In the EIA 77% of positive cases were positive in serum samples taken a week apart, whereas the corresponding figure for micro-IF was 50%. In micro-IF the measurement of IgA antibody levels is recommended and IgM-positive sera should be retested after removal of IgG antibody to avoid false-positive findings due to presence of rheumatoid factor. The collection of a third serum sample, for instance one month after onset, is also recommended, since half of the patients showed a diagnostic response in the micro-IF only in the sera taken one month apart. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:language | eng | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:journal | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:citationSubset | IM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:status | MEDLINE | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:month | Oct | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:issn | 0934-9723 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:LeinonenMM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:SaikkuPP | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:KujalaPP | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:SyrjäläHH | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:EkmanM RMR | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:LinnanmäkiEE | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:issnType | Print | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:volume | 12 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:owner | NLM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:authorsComplete | Y | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:pagination | 756-60 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:dateRevised | 2004-11-17 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8307044-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8307044-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8307044-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8307044-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8307044-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8307044-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8307044-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8307044-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8307044-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8307044-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8307044-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8307044-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8307044-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8307044-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8307044-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8307044-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8307044-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:year | 1993 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:articleTitle | Evaluation of serological methods in the diagnosis of Chlamydia pneumoniae pneumonia during an epidemic in Finland. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:affiliation | Department of Virology, University of Helsinki, Finland. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8307044 | pubmed:publicationType | Journal Article | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:8307044 | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:8307044 | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:8307044 | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:8307044 | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:8307044 | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:8307044 | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:8307044 | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:8307044 | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:8307044 | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:8307044 | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:8307044 | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:8307044 | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:8307044 | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:8307044 | lld:pubmed |
