Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:54:38.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors influencing the results of blood culture in enteric fever

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. Batty Shaw  and
H. A. F. Mackay
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The results of 192 blood cultures in an epidemic of enteric fever are analysed. The epidemic was caused by a double enteric infection with Salm. typhi (Vi-phage type T) and Salm. paratyphi B (Vi-phage type ‘Dundee’).

2. All of sixty –five cultures between 102 and 104∘ F. were positive, and a significant number of positive cultures at lower body temperatures were obtained. Three out of four cultures, taken when the temperature was subnormal, were positive. In seventy–one out of seventy–six cases (93·4%) a positive blood culture was obtained.

3. The highest percentage of positive isolations was obtained in the second week of disease. In the severe cases the highest percentage occurred in the third week. The reasons for this, and the findings of previous studies, are discussed.

4. No difficulty was encountered in obtaining positive blood cultures in previously inoculated individuals.

5. The average period of incubation of the cultures, required to produce a positive result, was 4–5 days, and 17% did not become positive until the ninth to eleventh day of incubation.

6. The discovery of ehloramphenicol has emphasized the need for the early diagnosis of enteric fever. This can most readily be achieved by the method of blood culture.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 49 , Issue 2-3 , June 1951 , pp. 315 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1951

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, E. S. & Richards, H. G. H. (1948). J. Hyg., Camb., 46, 164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batty Shaw, A. & Handfield-jones, R. P. C. (1948). J. R. Army med. Cps, 91, 189.Google Scholar
Batty Shaw, A. & Mackay, H. A. F. (1951). J. Hyg., Camb., 49, 299.Google Scholar
Butler, H. M. (1937). Blood Cultures and their Significance, p. 56. London: J. and A. Churchill.Google Scholar
Castellani, A. (1900). Rif. med. 16, 63, 76.Google Scholar
Castellani, A. (1902). Zbl. Bakt. Abt. I. Orig., 31, 477.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, P. K. (1942). Calcutta med. J. 39, 349.Google Scholar
Coleman, W. & Buxton, B. H. (1907). Amer. J. med. Sci. 133, 896.Google Scholar
Conradi, H. (1906). Dtsch. med. Wschr. 32, 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dick, J. C. (1946). J. Hyg., Camb., 44, 430.Google Scholar
Felix, A. (1924). J. Immunol. 9, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. & Callow, B. R. (1943). Brit. med. J. 2, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fornet, W. (1906). Münch, med. Wschr. 53, 1053.Google Scholar
Gay, F. P. (1918). Typhoid Fever, p. 89. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Glass, V. & Wright, H. D. (1937). J. Path. Bad. 45, 431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, D. (1929). A System of Bacteriology, 4, 70. London: Med. Res. Coun.Google Scholar
Hayes, W. & Freeman, J. F. (1945). Indian J. med. Res. 33, 177.Google Scholar
Hébert, P. & Bloch, M. (1922). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 36, 157.Google Scholar
Hobbs, B. C. & Allison, V. D. (1945). Mon. Bull. Min. Hlth & publ. Hlth Lab. Serv., Lond., 4, 63–8.Google Scholar
Hohlweg, (1915). Münch, med. Wschr. 62, 538.Google Scholar
Jochmann, G. (1924). Lehrbuch der Infektionskrankheiten, pp. 40, 49, 2nd ed., edited by Hegler, C.. Berlin.Google Scholar
Jordan, J. & Everley, jones H. (1945). Lancet, 2, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, F. (1950). The Diagnosis of Salmonella Types. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas.Google Scholar
Kayser, H. (1906). Münch, med. Wschr. 53, 823.Google Scholar
Labbeé, M. (1916). Ann. Mé. ed. 3, 13.Google Scholar
Lämpe, R. (1916). Dtsch. med. Wscher. 42, ii, 1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Boettf, A. & Braun, P. (1916). C.R. Soc. Bid., Paris, 79, 157.Google Scholar
Le Boeuf, A. & Braun, P. (1917). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 31, 138.Google Scholar
Ledingham, J. C. G. (1920). J. R. Army med. Cps, 34, 189, 306.Google Scholar
Ledingham, J. C. G. (1921). Lancet, 1, 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leishman, Sir W. B. (1923). History of the War, Medical Services, Pathology, p. 211. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Leitner, S. J. (1949). Bone Marrow Biopsy, p. 404. Translated by Britton, C. J. C. and Neumark, E.. London: Churchill.Google Scholar
Mann, B., Rainsford, L. F. & Warren, M. (1915). Med. surg. Rep. Roosevelt Hosp. p. 231. Quoted by Gay F. P. (1918).Google Scholar
Manson-Bahr, Sir P. H. (1950). Manson&s Tropical Diseases, p. 332, 13th ed.London: Cassell and Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Müller, R. & Gräf, H. (1906). Münch, med. Wschr. 53, 69.Google Scholar
Perry, H. M. (1918). Lancet, 1, 593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rist, E. (1916). Ann. Méd. 3, 88.Google Scholar
Schotmüller, H. (1902). Münch, med. Wschr. 49, 1561.Google Scholar
Stuart, P. M. & Pullen, R. L. (1946). Arch, intern. Med. 78, 629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan, V. C. (1920). J. Amer. med. Ass. 74, 1074, 1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vilchur, (1887). Etiology and Clinical Bacteriology of Typhoid Fever. St Petersburg.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. S. & Miles, A. A. (1946). Topley and Wilson&s Principles of Bacteriology and Immunity, 2, pp. 1520, 1527, 3rd ed.London: Arnold.Google Scholar