4.2 Article

Evaluation of new immunochromatographic assay kit for adenovirus detection in throat swab: Comparison with culture and real-time PCR results

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 20, 期 5-6, 页码 303-306

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2014.01.005

关键词

Adenovirus; Rapid detection; Immunochromatographic assay; Real-time PCR; Serotype

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new immunochromatographic (IC) assay kit, BD Veritor System Adeno was evaluated to comparing with commercial available kit, BD Adeno Examan, cell culture, and real-time PCR using throat swab samples. Specimens were collected from 146 pediatric patients between July 2011 and January 2012. Mean age of patients was 4 years (8 months-15 years old). Patients were diagnosed with pharyngitis (n = 67), tonsillitis (n = 45), pharyngoconjunctival fever (n = 26), upper respiratory tract infection (n = 6), conjunctivitis (n = 1), or bronchitis (n = 1). Thirty-one of the patients (21.2%) had more than one disease. Among all samples, 61(41.8%) were positive for adenovirus with BD Veritor System Adeno; 68 (46.6%) with BD Adeno Examan; 63 (43.2%) with real-time PCR; and 65 (44.5%) with cell culture. Serotype 3 (n = 41; 63.1%) was predominant among the 65 adenovirus isolates, followed by serotype 2 (n = 12; 18.5%), 1 (n = 6; 9.2%), 5 (n = 4; 6.2%), and 4 (n = 2; 3.1%). Relative sensitivity and specificity of BD Veritor System Adeno, BD Adeno Examan, and real-time PCR were 93.8% and 98.7%, 96.9% and 93.8%, and 96.9% and 100%, respectively. Positive predictive and negative predictive values for these methods were 98.4% and 95.1%, 92.6% and 97.4%, and 100% and 97.6%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of real-time PCR was greater than that of IC assay kits. However, IC assay kits also showed high sensitivity and specificity appropriate for clinical use. (C) 2014, Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据