PEDIATRICS Vol. 52 No. 1 July 1973, pp. 64-68
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rezvani, I.
Right arrow Articles by DiGeorge, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rezvani, I.
Right arrow Articles by DiGeorge, A. M.

EVALUATION OF SCREENING TESTS FOR URINARY MUCOPOLYSACCHARIDES

Iraj Rezvani M.D.1, P. J. Collipp M.D.1, and Angelo M. DiGeorge M.D.1

1 Department of Pediatrics, Temple University School of Medicine, St. Christopher's Hospital for Children, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Nassau County Medical Center, East Meadow, New York

A recently developed spot test, "MPS paper," has been added to other screening tests for urinary mucopolysaccharides. The effectiveness of this test has been compared to that of the cetytrimethylammonium bromide and the acid albumin gross turbidity tests in normal children and in patients with mucopolysaccharidoses. Although all these tests are effective in the detection of excessive mucopolysaccharides in urine, their excessive sensitivity yields many weak false-positives. We found "MPS paper" test to yield 34% false-positive tests, compared to 42% for cetytrimethylammonium bromide and 8% for the acid albumin gross turbidity test.

We have concluded that the acid albumin gross turbidity is the most reliable screening test for detection of mucopolysaccharide disorders. "MPS paper" spot test has the advantage of being simple and practical, but weak positive results should be interpreted with great caution; it has the added disadvantage of being the most costly of the screening tests at the present time.

Submitted on November 27, 1972
Accepted on February 27, 1973