Diagnostic Methods
Clinical laboratories can provide diagnostic testing for Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections using culture, serology, or nucleic acid amplification methods (see chart below).
Unique characteristics that impact diagnostic methods
M. pneumoniae differs from other bacteria in ways that impact the methods used for diagnosis of infection:
- It can pass through filters typically used to remove bacteria.
- Light microscopy cannot detect it.
- It does not produce visible turbidity in liquid growth media. In order to get a visual confirmation of growth, M. pneumoniae cultures require specialized media.
Diagnostic options
Currently, molecular test methods are widely used in clinical and public health laboratories. There are multiple commercially available molecular test kits cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the detection of M. pneumoniae. Most of these kits are used for detection of multiple respiratory pathogens, including M. pneumoniae. When additional or specialized testing is necessary, local or state public health laboratories can provide diagnostic support or forward specimens to CDC.
Advantages, disadvantages, and availability of select M. pneumoniae diagnostic methods
- Atkinson TP, Balish MF, Waites KB. Epidemiology, clinical manifestations, pathogenesis and laboratory detection of Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2008;32:956–73.
- Leal S, Totten A, Xiao L, et al. Evaluation of Commercial Molecular Diagnostic Methods for the Detection and Determination of Macrolide Resistance in Mycoplasma pneumoniae. J Clin Microbiol. 2020; doi:10.1128/JCM.00242-20.
- Thurman KA, Walter ND, Schwartz SB, et al. Comparison of laboratory diagnostic procedures for detection of Mycoplasma pneumoniae in community outbreaks. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:1244–9.
- Waites KB. What’s new in diagnostic testing and treatment approaches for Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections in children? Adv Exp Med Biol. 2011;719:47–57.
- Winchell JM. Mycoplasma pneumoniae – A national public health perspective. Curr Pediatr Rev. 2013; 9(4):324–33.