Research in Bacteriology - Case Study Example

Numerous factors are considered when selecting the testing method utilized in the identification of C. difficile microorganisms. The selected methods must be affordable for the organization undertaking the testing. Since the different methods require different testing durations, the number of samples and the time results expected also determine the testing methods to be utilized (DuPont, 2011). To ensure that all these factors have been met, optional methods can be utilized either singly or by combining two methods. The best option for testing would be combining the Glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) assay with the enzyme immune assay (EIA). The combination of these methods would enhance the limitations experienced by each method and increase the reliability of results.

Samples would be prepared and each sample tested using both methods and results recorded separately. A comparison of the results would then be undertaken to establish the various attributes being analyzed by the results. The GDH method has been identified as having high sensitivity, but very poor specificity. The method can, therefore, accurately rule out the presence of Clostridium difficile, but cannot ascertain the presence of the microbes (Goldenberg et al, 2010). The method rarely produces a negative for samples labeled true-positive using the EIA testing method. In most testing processes, GDH produces 100% specificity results because of the lack of false positive results, from the testing.

The combination of these methods would enhance findings since GDH produces high sensitivity, and EIA produces relatively high specificity. Combining these methods, therefore, presents researchers with the capacity to have reliable results from the laboratory testing of Clostridium difficile. GDH accurately tests the presence of enzymes produced by these microorganisms, but cannot ascertain the presence of C. difficile since similar enzymes are produced by other bacteria (Eastwood et al, 2009). The method can, therefore, rule out the presence of the microbial strain with a negative result, but a positive result cannot ascertain the presence of the microbial strain. Since the methods do not produce 100% sensitivity, the increased number of samples when undertaking combined testing increases the accuracy of results.