@article {10.3844/ajidsp.2012.1.4,
article_type = {journal},
title = {Comparing of Routine 2 Mercaptoethanol (2ME) and Coombs Wright Plus 2ME},
author = {Bagheri, Katayoun Haji and Mohsenpour, Behzad and Afrasiabian, Shahla},
volume = {8},
number = {1},
year = {2012},
month = {Jan},
pages = {1-4},
doi = {10.3844/ajidsp.2012.1.4},
url = {https://thescipub.com/abstract/ajidsp.2012.1.4},
abstract = {Problem statement: Serologic tests like Wright, Wright containing Anti-human globulin (Coombs Wright) and 2ME are the main methods of diagnosing brucellosis. The routine method of using Wright test and then performing 2ME is not enough sensitive to diagnose brucellosis.  The goal of this study is to compare the results of routine 2ME with 2ME on serum containing antihuman globulin (Coombs Wright+2ME). Approach: In this study 100 patients with brucellosis were evaluated. The serums of these patients were tested using routine 2ME and Coombs Wright with adding 2ME. Then the results of these tests were compared. Sensitivity and Specificity of these two methods were also calculated. Results: The sensitivity of routine 2ME was 52%. The sensitivity of 2ME Plus Coombs Wright was calculated as 97%. Sensitivity and Specificity of routine 2ME method against Coombs Wright plus 2ME method were respectively 53% (54-51: CI) and 75% (95-31: CI). Conclusion: According to the results, Coombs Wright plus 2ME can be used for negative 2ME test patients in order to follow up their response to treatment. In addition, it is not necessary to do Wright test and routine 2ME and instead of them, Coombs Wright plus 2ME can be used.},
journal = {American Journal of Infectious Diseases},
publisher = {Science Publications}
}