JCDR - Register at Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X
Microbiology Section DOI : 10.7860/JCDR/2016/22462.9010
Year : 2016 | Month : Dec | Volume : 10 | Issue : 12 Full Version Page : DC08 - DC11

Polymerase Chain Reaction: An Important Tool for Early Diagnosis of Leptospirosis Cases

Summaiya Mullan1, Tanvi Harivadanbhai Panwala2

1 Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology, Government Medical College, Surat, Gujarat, India.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Microbiology, Government Medical College, Surat, Gujarat, India.


NAME, ADDRESS, E-MAIL ID OF THE CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Dr. Tanvi Harivadanbhai Panwala, Assistant Professor, Department of Microbiology, Government Medical College, Surat-395001, Gujarat, India. Email: drtanvi2006@yahoo.co.in
Abstract

Introduction

Various diagnostic methods like Microscopic Agglutination Test (MAT), IgM ELISA, Isolation of Leptospira from the clinical specimen, Rapid leptocheck tests etc., are available for diagnosis of leptospirosis. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is used for diagnosis of various diseases of infectious origin including leptospirosis but there is paucity of data about comparison of PCR with other available method of diagnosis of leptospirosis.

Aim

The aim of the study was to detect the leptospiral DNA by PCR method and to compare the results of PCR with other available diagnostic methods used for diagnosis of suspected leptospirosis cases in acute phase of illness.

Materials and Methods

A total of 207 blood samples were obtained from suspected patients of leptospirosis admitted in New Civil Hospital, a tertiary care hospital in South Gujarat, during the period of July 2008 to November 2008. These blood samples were subjected to Rapid leptocheck, IgM ELISA, MAT test to detect (IgG or IgM) antibody level, Leptospira culture and PCR.

Results

In early phase of the disease, Rapid leptocheck test gave 44% detection, but along with PCR seropositivity reached upto 71%. Detection rate by IgM ELISA was 59% which increased to 80% with PCR. By MAT seropositivity was 57% but combined seropositivity of MAT with PCR was 78%. Sensitivity and specificity of PCR as compared to MAT (Gold standard) was 52% and 79% respectively. Leptospira was not growing in culture.

Conclusion

In present study, PCR picked up to 50% of cases which were negative by other serological tests so these finding suggest that PCR should be used routinely in acute phase of disease.

Keywords

Introduction

Leptospirosis is a globally widespread bacterial zoonosis caused by spirochetes belonging to genus Leptospira [1]. It has been classified as an emerging or re-emerging infectious disease by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization (WHO) [2,3]. An estimated 500,000 cases occur annually, with fatality range rising up to 70% as mentioned in different cohort study [4]. Leptospirosis disease mainly affects the agricultural farmers and urban slum dwellers as in resources poor developing countries are unable to provide basic medical services in these areas so the WHO considers leptospirosis to be a neglected zoonotic disease [5,6]. Identifying leptospirosis is a diagnostic challenge, because of its protean manifestations which vary from asymptomatic or mild flu like cases to a severe fulminant disease presenting with jaundice, renal failure, pneumonia, haemorrhage and shock [7].

Various diagnostic methods like Rapid tests, IgM dipstick assay, Slide agglutination test, IgM dot ELISA, dipstick test, IgM ELISA, MAT (Microscopic Agglutination Test), indirect hemagglutination assay etc., are available. Besides these diagnostic approaches, development of accurate molecular based detection methods like Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) has been a major advance for leptospirosis diagnosis during first week of illness [8].

PCR can be used in conjunction with other diagnostic tests for rapid and accurate diagnosis to initiate proper and timely management [9]. This study was designed with the aim to detect the leptospiral DNA by PCR method in serum of the suspected leptospirosis patients in early phase of illness and to compare the results of PCR with that of rapid leptocheck, IgM ELISA and MAT.

Materials and Methods

Patients and sera: A retrospective study was conducted during the period of July 2008 to November 2008. A total of 207 blood samples were collected from clinically suspected cases of leptospirosis according to WHO case definition [3], “any patient presenting with an abrupt onset of fever, chills, conjunctiva suffusion, headache, myalgia, oliguria, jaundice, breathlessness and haemoptysis” admitted in New Civil Hospital, Surat and from admitted patients of peripheral health centre of South Gujarat. Informed consent was taken from all participants. All patients of 15-55 years of age were included in present study. Patient having other infection like malaria, dengue, hepatitis, typhoid etc., that was diagnosed by laboratory was excluded from the study. Blood samples were centrifuged at 1000g for 10 minutes and separated serum stored at -20°C. The enrolled patients in present study were requested for convalescent sample after 15 days of first sample collection. Both acute and convalescent phase sera were subjected to Rapid Leptocheck, IgM ELISA and MAT. PCR was done only in acute phase (first serum sample) sera. Leptospira culture of freshly collected whole blood samples was done in Ellinghausen McCullough Johnson Harris (EMJH) liquid and semi-solid medium.

Rapid leptocheck test: (Rapid leptocheck WB) 10μL from each sample was tested as per manufacturer’s instruction. It utilizes the principle of immunochromatography, a unique two-site immunoassay on a membrane. As the test sample flow through the membrane of the test device, the anti-human IgM colloidal gold conjugate forms a complex with IgM antibodies in the sample. When this complex moves in the cassette to the test window ‘T’, it is immobilized by the genus specific antigen of leptospira coated on the membrane, which lead to the formation of a red to deep purple coloured band at the test region. If the band is present on ‘T’ region it confirms a positive test result. If there is no band at the test region, it indicates negative result. At the “C” region, the anti-rabbit antibodies are coated. If any unreacted conjugate and the unbound complex present in the sample, it will move further on the membrane and are subsequently immobilized at “C” window forming a red to deep purple coloured band. If there is no control band formed at this region, it suggests the test is invalid [10].

IgM ELISA test: All serum samples were evaluated using IgM ELISA (Institute Virion, SerionGmbh, Wurzhurg Germany) as per the manufacturer’s instruction [11]. At each test run, laboratory had kept sets of a positive control, negative control and cut-off calibrator in duplicate.

Calculation for Serion ELISA classic leptospira IgM: Serion units of < 40 were interpreted as a negative result and ≥ 40 was interpreted as a positive result.

Microscopic Agglutination test: The MAT test was performed using standard procedure. MAT test includes different serogroups which were used as an antigen in each test run. The following serogroups were used in the test: L. australis (Australis), L. autumnalis (Bangkinang), L. ballum (Ballum), L. sejroe (Hardjo), L. canicola (Canicola), L. hebdomadis (Hebdomadis), L. pomona (Pomona),L. grippotyphosa (Grippotyphosa), L. pyrogen (Pyrogen), L. Icterohaemorrhagiae (Icterohaemorrhagiae),L. semeranga (Patoc1). These strains were obtained from National Leptospirosis Reference Centre, RMRC, WHO collaborating centre in Portblair, Andaman and Nicobar Island. These serovars were maintained in semisolid 0.1% EMJH agar supplemented with 10% enrichment (Difco, USA). These strains were maintained at 28-30°C temperature for incubation.

Preparation of antigen: From the panel of 11 serovars, 0.5ml of each strain was inoculated into 10ml of liquid EMJH. These inoculated test tubes were kept in incubator at 28-30°C for five to seven days. Culture was checked after 5 days of inoculation under dark field microscopy to see that absence of any contamination or clumps or presence of enough quantity of growth which was required in MAT test. A growth should be as appropriate as McFarland standard 1 so density of leptospira should be approximately 2-3 x 108 leptospira /ml of media.

A total of 96 well flat bottomed microtitre plates was used in MAT test. Serum was diluted by using Phosphate Buffer Saline. Dilution of serum was started from 1 in 25 to 1 in 1600. A 50μl of the specific serovar (McFarland 1.0) added to all the wells. One of the wells with antigen only, without addition of antibody served as an antigen control. The final dilution after adding the antigen was 1 in 50 to 1 in 3200. The plate was covered with aluminium foil and incubated at 37°C for 2 hours in wet chamber to avoid dehydration. Slide was examined by dark field microscopy at a magnification of 40X after 2 hours of incubation. The reporting of end point titer was the highest serum dilution which showed approximately 50% agglutinated leptospires or reduction in the number of leptospiral cells as compared to the antigen control. A titer of 1 in 100 or more was considered as a significant titer [12,13]. If any sera showed seroconversion or fourfold rise of antibodies titre in MAT test between acute and convalescent phase serum or positive by IgM ELISA was considered as a confirm case of leptospirosis.

Real time PCR assay: Total DNA from human serum (200μl) was prepared using QIAamp DNA Mini kits (QIAGEN, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The primers and probes were designed from alignments of available Leptospira spp. LipL32 sequences obtained from the GenBank nucleotide sequence database. Assay used were Taqman® gene expression assay. The program used was Primer Express™ (Applied Biosystems, USA). For Real Time PCR, 8.8μl of DNA was added to the 11.2μl Taqman Universal PCR Master mix (Applied Biosystems, USA). A negative control without added template in the above reaction mixture was used as a control to detect the presence of contaminating DNA. Amplification and fluorescence detection was conducted in an ABI Prism 7300 sequence detector (Applied Biosystems, USA) with a program of 50 cycles, each cycle consisting of initial denaturation at 50 °C for 2 minute, 95°C for 10 minute followed by primer annealing at 95°C for 15 seconds and extension at 60°C for one minute as per the manufacturer’s instructions. The oligonucleotide primers used were 5’-GGATCTGTGATCAACTATTAC-3’, reverse primer 3’-CGAACTCCCATTTCAGCGATTAC-5’ and reporter 1 sequence was TCCGGCGCTTGTCCTG with reporter 1 dye FAM and reporter 1 quencher NFQ.

Blood culture: Whole blood samples collected upon admission of patients were cultured in EMJH liquid medium supplemented with enrichment medium and 5-fluorouracil (200μg/ml) and incubated aerobically at 28°-30°C. A drop from each culture medium was checked weekly by dark field microscopy from second week onwards and kept for 4 months before being discarded as negative [14].

Results

Total 207 patients with clinically suspected cases of leptospirosis were enrolled in present study. Cases were reported between July to November month during the year 2008. An adult age group from 20-39 year was more commonly infected by these leptospira [Table/Fig-1]. Gender distribution of leptospirosis shows 169 (82%) cases, males were affected. Seropositivity rate of different laboratory test were shown in [Table/Fig-2], 91(44%) cases were detected by Rapid leptocheck test in early phase of disease, along with PCR detection rate reached to 146 (71%). Seropositive cases by IgM ELISA alone were 122 (59%) which increased to 165 (80%) with PCR. By MAT, seropositivity was found in 118 (57%) cases if MAT test was done alone but combination with PCR seropositivity of MAT was increased upto 78% [Table/Fig-3]. Comparison of PCR with other tests considering MAT as gold standard was shown in [Table/Fig-4]. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PCR were 52%, 79% and 57% respectively. No leptospira in culture was isolated.

Age wise distribution of leptospirosis cases.

Seropositivity rate of different laboratory tests.

Stage of diseaseSeropositivity by Rapid Leptocheck test (%)Seropositivity by IgM ELISA (%)Seropositivity by MAT (%)
Acute phase91 (44%)122 (59%)118 (57%)
Convalescent phase159 (77%)161 (78%)161 (78%)

Showing the increase detection rate seropositive cases by different serological tests along with PCR in acute phase of leptospirosis illness.

Comparison of PCR with other diagnostic tests considering MAT as gold standard in acute phase of leptospirosis disease.

PCR (%)Rapid test (%)ELISA (%)
Sensitivity526584
Specificity798375
PPV908381
NPV306378

PPV - Positive Predictive Value

NPV - Negative Predictive Value


Discussion

Leptospirosis is widely recognized as acute febrile disease and being emergent or re-emergent in tropical and sub-tropical regions. Leptospirosis is frequently under-diagnosed, also challenging as culture of Leptospira and seroconversion require weeks [15]. Isolation of Leptospira from the clinical specimen is difficult because leptospires are fastidious, slow growing that requires special growth media and it is time consuming and laborious [16,17]. Therefore, PCR assay is highly useful as a contemporary method for diagnosis in acute phase of leptospirosis.

Many previous studies had mentioned the higher sensitivity of PCR when samples are taken early and before initiation of anti-microbial therapy [1820] and showed that PCR increases the detection rate in early phase of disease. Leptospira disseminates to most tissues and body fluids like blood, spinal fluid in acute phase, where they multiply rapidly [2123]. Moreover, PCR positivity peaked from 4th day to 8th day after onset of symptoms; even cases were detected upto 15 days without any significant difference in sensitivity of assay [24].

In leptospirosis, antibodies begin to appear within a few days of onset of symptoms and in a significant proportion of patients the antibodies persist in detectable quantities for several months. Various rapid serologic tests are available, but these tests have low sensitivity in early acute phase. They are primarily IgM detection tests which are not detectable till 5-7 days of onset of symptoms [9,16]. In present study, 91(44%) suspected cases were positive by rapid leptocheck serological test in early phase of disease, while PCR test had detected 55 (27%) more cases which would not have been detected by Leptocheck alone. Considering ELISA, 59% suspected cases were positive by IgM ELISA; however it was 80 % with PCR. Similarly, positivity of MAT increases from 57% to 78% with PCR. Since, IgM ELISA and MAT detects early antibodies, they are the most common diagnostic approach to leptospirosis. MAT is a gold standard method but, titers are usually low during the acute stage of the disease, therefore diagnosis is difficult on basis of single serum sample. MAT test is also technically challenging and requires maintenance of live Leptospira strains including local prevalent strains.

The gold standard MAT analysis of present study was compared with other studies [Table/Fig-5]. In these studies sensitivity of IgM ELISA ranges from 43% to 100% and specificity ranges from 76% to 98%. Leptocheck WB sensitivity ranges from 78% to 93% and specificity ranges from 84% to 98%. Sensitivity and specificity of PCR in Fonseca et al., was 62% and 100%, but in Smita shekatkar et al., it was 11% and 95% respectively. These all results show a correlation with present study [9,11,13,14,2426].

Comparison with other study results showing sensitivity and specificity of rapid Leptochek WB, IgM ELISA and PCR [9,11,13,14,2426].

ReferencesSensitivity (%)Specificity (%)
Rapid Leptocheck WB testMG Goris [14]7898
Niloofa R et al., [24]8684
Panwala et al., [11]9386
Present study6583
ELISAKucerova et al., [25]10088
Effler et al., [9]4898
Fonscea et al., [26]7989
Smita Shekatkar [13]4376
Present study8475
PCRFonscea et al., [26]62100
Smita Shekatkar [13]1195
Present study5279

Fonseca et al., showed that sensitivity increases to 96.5% in IgM ELISA and 93.1% in MAT along with PCR [26]. Ooteman M et al., detected 13-29% positive cases by PCR among 45 unconfirmed cases by MAT [27]. Biswas D et al., showed the sensitivity of single MAT at diagnostic titre of 1 in 80 with PCR, were found to be 56 % [28]. The efficacy of other commonly used test was estimated by comparing the results of these tests with PCR results considering MAT as gold standard.

Currently, molecular based detection methods have redefined the reference standard because their sensitivity was more than other diagnostic tests and they can even detect low levels of leptospires in acute phase of illness [24,29]. From the clinical point of view, the ability to detect the infection early in the course of the disease is of extreme importance for initiating appropriate treatment to avoid serious complications.

Limitation

The present study has a limitation that Leptospira isolates were not obtained. Reason could be the delay of sample collection after the onset of symptoms. Patients referred from peripheral health center had already taken primary treatment which in turn decreases the chances of leptospira isolation from blood. Although PCR was less sensitive than serological reactions throughout the course of the illness, may give erroneous results when inhibitory factors are present in the samples that impairs the amplification process [30] as well as when leptospires are present in very low numbers. PCR detects DNA while other tests detect antibody in sera so, PCR is an effective complementary test in the first phase of the disease, particularly when no specific antibodies were detected in serological reaction and helps in detection of more cases which would have been missed by antibody test [31]. A limitation of PCR based diagnosis of leptospirosis is the inability of the assays to identify the infecting circulating serovars in particular geographical area [18,32].

Conclusion

PCR is very sensitive and specific test in the acute phase of illness, it picked up to 50% of cases which were negative by other serological tests. This result showed that the PCR method has advantages over other serological test in the early diagnosis of Leptospirosis. The identity of infecting serovars has significant epidemiological and public health measures but the prompt diagnosis of Leptospirosis is essential for both patients care and efficient implementation of public health measures, so use of PCR with other diagnostic methods in early phase of leptospirosis increases the detection rate.

PPV - Positive Predictive ValueNPV - Negative Predictive Value

References

[1]Fernando N, Wickremesinghe S, Niloofa R, Rodrigo C, Karunanayake L, de Silva HJ, Protein carbonyl as a biomarker of oxidative stress in severe leptospirosis, and Its usefulness in differentiating leptospirosis from dengue infections PLoS ONE 2016 11(6):e0156085  [Google Scholar]

[2]Vijayachari P, Sugunan AP, Shriram AN, Leptospirosis: an emerging global public health problem Journal of biosciences 2008 33(4):557-69.  [Google Scholar]

[3]World Health Organization. Human Leptospirosis: Guidance for diagnosis, surveillance and control. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2003. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2003/WHO_CDS_CSR_EPH_2002.23.PDF. Accessed 2 February 2012  [Google Scholar]

[4]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Infectious Disease. Infectious disease information: emerging infectious disease. [Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/eid/disease_sites.htm. Accessed 2 February 2012]  [Google Scholar]

[5]World Health OrganizationLeptospirosis: an emerging public health problem Wkly Epidemiol Rec 2001 86:45-52.  [Google Scholar]

[6]World Health Organization. Leptospirosis Burden Epidemilogy Reference Group. Zoonoses and veterinary public health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2010. Available at: http://www.who.int/zoonoses/diseases/lerg/en/. [Accessed February 2012]  [Google Scholar]

[7]Speelman P, Hartskeerl R, Leptospirosis. In: Fauci, Braunwld, Kasper, editors Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine 2008 17th edMcGrawHill:1048-51.  [Google Scholar]

[8]Picardeau M, Diagnosis and epidemiology of leptospirosis Med mal Infect 2013 43(1):1-9.  [Google Scholar]

[9]Effler PV, Bogard AK, Domen HY, Katz AR, Higa HY, Sasaki DM, Evaluation of eight rapid screening tests for acute leptospirosis in Hawaii Journal of clinical microbiology 2002 40(4):1464-69.  [Google Scholar]

[10]Chang CH, Riazi M, Yunus MH, Osman S, Noordin R, Limited diagnostic value of two commercial rapid tests for acute leptospirosis detection in Malaysia Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease 2014 80:278  [Google Scholar]

[11]Panwala T, Mulla S, Patel P, Seroprevalence of leptospirosis in South Gujarat region by evaluating the two rapid commercial diagnostic kits against the MAT test for detection of antibodies to Leptospira interrogans Natl J Community Med 2011 2(1):64-70.  [Google Scholar]

[12]Panwala T, Rajdev S, Mulla S, To evaluate the different rapid screening tests for diagnosis of leptospirosis Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research : JCDR 2015 9(2):DC21-DC24.  [Google Scholar]

[13]Shekatkar SB, Harish BN, Parija SC, Diagnosis of leptospirosis by polymerase chain reaction Int J Pharm Bio Sci 2010 1:1-6.  [Google Scholar]

[14]Goris MG, Leeflang MM, Loden M, Wagenaar JF, Klatser PR, Hartskeerl RA, Prospective evaluation of three rapid diagnostic tests for diagnosis of human leptospirosis PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2013 7(7):e2290  [Google Scholar]

[15]Cerqueira GM, Picardeau M, A century of Leptospira strain typing Infect Genet Evol 2009 9:760-68.  [Google Scholar]

[16]Katz AR, Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction: Filling the gap for early leptospirosis diagnosis Clin Infect Dis 2012 54(9):1256-58.  [Google Scholar]

[17]Levett PN, Leptospira. In: Versalovic J, Carroll KC, Funke G, et al, eds Manual of clinical microbiology 2011 10th edEashington, DCASM Press:916-23.  [Google Scholar]

[18]Ahmed A, Engelberts MF, Boer KR, Ahmed N, Hartskeerl RA, Development and validation of a real-time PCR for detection of pathogenic Leptospira species in clinical materials PLoS One 2009 4:7093  [Google Scholar]

[19]Boonsilp S, Thaipadungpanit J, Amornchai P, Wuthiekanun V, Chierakul W, Limmathurotsakul D, Molecular detection and speciation of pathogenic Leptospira spp. In blood from patients with culture-negative leptospirosis BMC Infectious Diseases 2011 11(1):1  [Google Scholar]

[20]Villumsen S, Pedersen R, Krogfelt KA, Jensen JS, Expanding the diagnostic use of PCR in leptospirosis: improved method for DNA extraction from blood cultures PLoS One 2010 5:12095  [Google Scholar]

[21]Cassadou S, Rosine J, Flamand C, Esher M, Ledrans M, Bourhy P, Under estimation of Leptospirosis Incidence in the French West Indies. Foley J, ed PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2016 10(4):e104668  [Google Scholar]

[22]Stoddard RA, Gee JE, Wilkins PP, McCaustland K, Hoffmaster AR, Detection of pathogenic Leptospira spp. Through TaqMan polymerase chain reaction targeting the LipL42 gene Diagn. Microbiol Infect Dis 2009 64:247-55.  [Google Scholar]

[23]Segura ER, Ganoza CA, Campos K, Ricaldi JN, Torres S, Silva H, Clinical spectrum of pulmonary involvement in leptospirosis in a region of endemicity, with quantification of leptospiral burden Clin Infect Dis 2005 40:343-51.  [Google Scholar]

[24]Niloofa R, Fernando N, de Silva NL, Karunanayake L, Wickramasinghe H, Dikmadugoda N, Diagnosis of Leptospirosis:Comparison between Microscopic Agglutination Test, IgM-ELISA and IgM Rapid Immunochromatography Test PLoSONE 2015 10(6):e0129236  [Google Scholar]

[25]Kucerova P, Cermakova Z, Pliskova L, Valenta Z, Pavlis O, Kubickova P, Comparison of results of two serological methods for diagnosing leptospirosis—microagglutination test and ELISA Klinicka mikrobiologie a infekcni lekarstvi 2011 17(5):173-78.  [Google Scholar]

[26]Fonseca CA, Teixeira MMG, Romero EC, Polymerase chain reaction in comparison with serological tests for early diagnosis of human leptospirosis Tropical Medicine and International Health 2006 11:1699-707.  [Google Scholar]

[27]Ooteman MC, Vago AR, Koury MC, Evaluation of MAT, IgM ELISA and PCR methods for the diagnosis of human leptospirosis J Microbiol Methods 2006 65:247-57.  [Google Scholar]

[28]Biswas D, Roy S, Sugunan AP, Vijayachari P, Sehgal SC, et al. PCR in early diagnosis of leptospirosis. Regional Medical Research Centre (ICMR), Port Blair, presented in International conference on Leptospirosis: a diagnostic enigma and the 6th Scientific Meeting of the Indian Leptospirosis Society. 2006  [Google Scholar]

[29]Chaurasia BK, Premlatha MM, Varshney AK, Dhawan B, Chaudhry R, et al. Cloning of 16S rRNA fragment of Leptospira australis to be used as positive template in standardization and application of PCR. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New delhi, presented in International conference on Leptospirosis: a diagnostic enigma and the 6th Scientific Meeting of the Indian Leptospirosis Society. 2006  [Google Scholar]

[30]Boom R, Sol CJA, Salimans MMM, Jansen CL, Wertheim-van Dillen PME, van der Noordaa J, Rapid and simple method for purification of nucleic acids J Clin Microbiol 1990 28:495-503.  [Google Scholar]

[31]Bajani MD, Ashford DA, Bragg SL, Evaluation of four commercially available rapid serologic tests for diagnosis of leptospirosis J Clin Microbiol 2003 41:803-09.  [Google Scholar]

[32]Ahmad SN, Shah S, Ahmad FM, Laboratory diagnosis of leptospirosis J Postgrad Med 2005 51:195-200.  [Google Scholar]