Table 1

 Comparison of studies on Pseudomonas serology

Paper 1Paper 2
PA, Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
*Timing of the serological assessment by Kappler et al9 included correlation of “the antibody test results, firstly, with known microbiological data from the previous 2 years and, secondly, with microbiological results from the following 2 years”, while Tramper-Stranders10 determined antibody titres “at the end of the observation period in 2004” in the cross sectional study (A) and annually for 3 years “concomitantly when cultures were taken” in the prospective study (B).
†Defined by Kappler et al9 as ⩾7 positive of 8 cultures and by Tramper-Stranders et al10 as >50% of all cultures positive.
AuthorsKappler et al9Tramper-Stranders et al10
OriginMunich, GermanyUtrecht, The Netherlands
DesignProspective: sequential assessment of serology every 3 months for 2 years compared with PA cultures during 2 yearsCross sectional (A) and prospective (B) assessment of microbiology and serology with PA serology evaluated in 2004 or annually in the prospective study of children with CF
No of CF patients183(A) 220(B) 57
Age (years)
PA status
MethodologyCommercially available ELISA test system (Mediagnost, Germany) measuring alkaline protease, elastase and exotoxin A titres (positive titre defined as >1:500) by Kappler et al9 whereas Tramper-Stranders et al10 used ROC determined cut off values)