Immunoglobulin M for acute infection: True or false?

78Citations
Citations of this article
85Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

ImmunoglobulinM(IgM) tests have clear clinical utility but also suffer disproportionately from false-positive results, which in turn can lead to misdiagnoses, inappropriate therapy, and premature closure of a diagnostic workup. Despite numerous reports in the literature, many clinicians and laboratorians remain unaware of this issue. In this brief review, a series of virology case examples is presented. However, a false-positive IgM can occur with any pathogen. Thus, when an accurate diagnosis is essential for therapy, prognosis, infection control, or public health, when the patient is sick enough to be hospitalized, or when the clinical or epidemiologic findings do not fit, IgM detection should not be accepted as a stand-alone test. Rather, whenever possible, the diagnosis should be confirmed by other means, including testing of serial samples and the application of additional test methods.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Landry, M. L. (2016). Immunoglobulin M for acute infection: True or false? Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, 23(7), 540–545. https://doi.org/10.1128/CVI.00211-16

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free