Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the reproducibility with which microbiologists interpret Gram-stained sputa and examine the effect of the smear preparation method.MethodsTwo hundred and ten coded slides prepared directly from a purulent portion of sputum (DS) and 140 slides prepared after homogenization of the same sputum (HS) were examined by three experienced microbiologists. A proportion of the slides prepared by each method were recorded and represented to the raters. Intraobserver and interobserver variation was assessed using the kappa statistic (kappa).ResultsEvaluation of the smear as being infected and predicting Streptococcus pneumoniae as the infecting organism showed the greatest intraobserver agreement (kappa=0.74-0.82) and interobserver agreement (kappa=0.50-0.82). The agreement concerning the number of cells and infection with Haemophilus influenzae was only fair to moderate. Differences in the interpretation of smears prepared by the two methods could be explained by the intrinsic disagreement that occurs when the same smear is examined twice. The positive predictive value of a positive S. pneumoniae smear for a positive culture ([10(6)/ml) was 81% with the DS and 97% with the HS.ConclusionIn this laboratory, a sputum Gram film interpretation suggesting infection with S. pneumoniae was reproducible and predictive of a significant positive culture.

More information Original publication

DOI

10.1053/jinf.2000.0680

Type

Journal article

Publication Date

2000-07-01T00:00:00+00:00

Volume

41

Pages

55 - 60

Total pages

5

Addresses

D, e, p, a, r, t, m, e, n, t, , o, f, , M, e, d, i, c, a, l, , M, i, c, r, o, b, i, o, l, o, g, y, , a, n, d, , G, e, n, i, t, o, u, r, i, n, a, r, y, , M, e, d, i, c, i, n, e, ,, , R, o, y, a, l, , L, i, v, e, r, p, o, o, l, , U, n, i, v, e, r, s, i, t, y, , H, o, s, p, i, t, a, l, ,, , D, u, n, c, a, n, , B, u, i, l, d, i, n, g, ,, , D, a, u, l, b, y, , S, t, r, e, e, t, ,, , L, i, v, e, r, p, o, o, l, ,, , L, 6, 9, , 3, B, X, ,, , U, ., K, .

Keywords

Sputum, Humans, Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus Infections, Streptococcal Infections, Respiratory Tract Infections, Gentian Violet, Phenazines, Observer Variation, Staining and Labeling, Prospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, Predictive Value of Tests, Adolescent, Adult