Lab and culture reports: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) |
||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This page explains how we use culture reports to confirm infections and pathogens. | This page explains how we use culture reports to confirm infections and pathogens. | ||
== | == Additional Information == | ||
[[ | *This is about identification of a clinical infection. | ||
**For disorders believed to be infectious, we have a list of pathogens, and if the pathogen is never identified then you can use '''[[Infectious organism, unknown]]'''. | |||
*Even if you do identify one or more organisms that are '''''potential''''' pathogens, usually it requires clinical correlation to decide whether it/they are actually pathogenic in this patient | |||
**There are very few bugs that are always pathogenic (i.e. causing an infectious disease) -- high on this list is M.Tb. and Legionella. Even organisms like Aspergillis can be colonizers. | |||
**Thus identifying whether a ''potential'' pathogen is in fact acting as a pathogen in a given patient requires clinical correlation. | |||
*Having said that: | |||
**While it is strongest to have a lab sample (fluid or tissue) from which the organism has been cultured, there are circumstances where this isn't necessary, e.g. '''[[Infection with implied pathogen]]''' | |||
**Even a lab identification may not be from culturing -- e.g. there are monoclonal antibody and other non-culture methods such as antigen identification (e.g. Legionella urinary antigen) that can identify the presence of a bug | |||
*The question arises of whether when you do NOT have any sort of lab identification of a bug, whether clinical suspicion is enough to "call it": | |||
**Again, the answer is generally "Yes" with '''[[Infection with implied pathogen]]''', and generally "No" elsewise -- deviating from these generalities can be done if you've got an excellent, scientific rationale. | |||
How and when infections are identified is relevant to [[Attribution of infections]]. | |||
== Related articles == | |||
{{Related Articles}} | |||
[[Category:Infectious disease| *]] | |||
[[Category:Infectious disease|*]] | |||
Latest revision as of 13:27, 21 July 2021
This page explains how we use culture reports to confirm infections and pathogens.
Additional Information
- This is about identification of a clinical infection.
- For disorders believed to be infectious, we have a list of pathogens, and if the pathogen is never identified then you can use Infectious organism, unknown.
- Even if you do identify one or more organisms that are potential pathogens, usually it requires clinical correlation to decide whether it/they are actually pathogenic in this patient
- There are very few bugs that are always pathogenic (i.e. causing an infectious disease) -- high on this list is M.Tb. and Legionella. Even organisms like Aspergillis can be colonizers.
- Thus identifying whether a potential pathogen is in fact acting as a pathogen in a given patient requires clinical correlation.
- Having said that:
- While it is strongest to have a lab sample (fluid or tissue) from which the organism has been cultured, there are circumstances where this isn't necessary, e.g. Infection with implied pathogen
- Even a lab identification may not be from culturing -- e.g. there are monoclonal antibody and other non-culture methods such as antigen identification (e.g. Legionella urinary antigen) that can identify the presence of a bug
- The question arises of whether when you do NOT have any sort of lab identification of a bug, whether clinical suspicion is enough to "call it":
- Again, the answer is generally "Yes" with Infection with implied pathogen, and generally "No" elsewise -- deviating from these generalities can be done if you've got an excellent, scientific rationale.
How and when infections are identified is relevant to Attribution of infections.