Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Reading: Actim™PROM, AmniSure®, and ROM +plus®: Rupture of membrane kits tested on amniotic fluid fro...

Download

A- A+
dyslexia friendly

Original Papers

Actim™PROM, AmniSure®, and ROM +plus®: Rupture of membrane kits tested on amniotic fluid from women at C-section: a comparative study

Author:

H M Senanayake

University of Colombo, LK
About H M
Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine
X close

Abstract

Objectives: To confirm three point of care commercial tests for rupture of membranes consistently and accurately detect amniotic fluids from pregnant women, and they are practical and easy to use.

Methods: Samples of fresh amniotic fluid were collected in a syringe taken at time of C section and run on kits (Actim™PROM, AmniSure®, and ROM +plus®) from three commercially available point of care rupture of membrane tests. Samples were sent to an independent laboratory for ELISA analysis of these amniotic fluid proteins (insulin-like growth factor binding protein (IGFBP-1) and alpha-Fetal protein (AFP). Test results of known amniotic fluid on Actim™PROM, AmniSure®, and ROM +plus®, along with ease of use of comments. False negatives were used to determine accuracy of tests.

Results: Correct results were obtained in 96.8%, 95.8%, and 98.9% respectively for Actim™PROM, AmniSure®, and ROM +plus®. Users reported ROM +plus® was easiest to use.

Conclusions: ROM +plus®. provided the least amount of false negative testing on known samples of amniotic fluid. ROM +plus® was considered most simple and easiest to use and detects two different amniotic fluid proteins while the other tests detect one protein.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4038/sljog.v35i4.6587

Sri Lanka Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2013; 35: 116-121

DOI: http://doi.org/10.4038/sljog.v35i4.6587
How to Cite: Senanayake, H.M., (2014). Actim™PROM, AmniSure®, and ROM +plus®: Rupture of membrane kits tested on amniotic fluid from women at C-section: a comparative study. Sri Lanka Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 35(4), pp.116–121. DOI: http://doi.org/10.4038/sljog.v35i4.6587
1277
Views
952
Downloads
Published on 18 Feb 2014.
Peer Reviewed

Downloads

  • PDF (EN)

    comments powered by Disqus