4.6 Article

An evaluation of the RIDASCREEN and IDEIA enzyme immunoassays and the RIDAQUICK immunochromatographic test for the detection of norovirus in faecal specimens

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY
卷 49, 期 4, 页码 254-257

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2010.08.004

关键词

Norovirus; ELISA; Immunochromatographic; Sensitivity; Specificity

类别

资金

  1. Brazilian CNPq [476841/2006-2]
  2. University of Liverpool
  3. Liverpool University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The detection of norovirus by ELISA and immunochromatographic methods may facilitate epidemiological studies into the global disease burden associated with norovirus gastroenteritis and provide a quick method of testing for norovirus infection. Objectives: To evaluate the new RIDASCREEN norovirus ELISA (3rd generation) and RIDAQUICK norovirus immunochromatographic test on a collection of samples from Brazilian children with acute gastroenteritis, and compare them against the established 2nd generation IDEIA norovirus assay. Study design: Reverse transcriptase PCR, the study reference standard, was used to test 726 specimens for the presence of norovirus. All 96 norovirus positive samples and a systematic selection of negative samples were tested by RIDASCREEN, RIDAQUICK and IDEIA norovirus tests. Results: The sensitivity of RIDASCREEN for the detection of norovirus was 63% (95% CI: 53-72%) and RIDAQUICK 69% (95% CI: 58-78%); both were >98% specific. The IDEIA had a sensitivity of 45% (95% CI: 35-55%), significantly lower than RIDASCREEN and RIDAQUICK (p <= 0.01). The sensitivity of RIDASCREEN and RIDAQUICK in detecting GII.4 noroviruses, the principal norovirus strain identified in community and nosocomial infection globally, was 78% and 88% respectively. Conclusion: The norovirus RIDASCREEN test may be useful in epidemiological studies of norovirus infection and the norovirus RIDAQUICK test offers an accurate and rapid method of detecting norovirus infection. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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