3.9 Article

Companisons of latex agglutination, immunochromatography and enzyme immunoassay methods for the detection of rotavirus antigen

期刊

KOREAN JOURNAL OF LABORATORY MEDICINE
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 437-441

出版社

KOREAN SOC LABORATORY MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3343/kjlm.2007.27.6.437

关键词

rotavirus; latex agglutination; immunochromatography; enzyme immunoassay

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background : Rotavirus is the most common cause of childhood gastroenteritis during winter season. Rapid, accurate diagnosis is essential for preventing severe complications of rotaviral gastroenteritis. The sensitivity and specificity of five detection test kits for rotavirus including latex agglutination (LAT), enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and three immunochromatographic methods (ICG) were evaluated in this study. Methods : A total of 95 stool samples collected from patients with acute gastroenteritis were studied. The test kits were as follows: LAT (Slidex latex, bioMerieux Vitek, France); three kinds of ICG (Dipstick ROTA, Eiken, Japan; SAS Rota Test, SA Scientific, Inc,, USA; and ASAN Easy Test Rota strip, ASAN Pharmaceutical., Korea); and EIA (VIDAS Rotavirus, bioMerieux Vitek). The samples showing discordant results were reevaluated by reverse-transcription (RT) PCR and clinical manifestations. Results: Of a total of 95 cases, 56 (58.9%) were positive and 39 (41.1%) were negative. Thirteen cases showed discordant results. Sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 85.7% and 100% for LAT, 100% and 95% for both of Dipstick ROTA and SAS Rota, 86.7% and 87.5% for ASAN Rota strip and 98.1% and 97.3% for EIA. Conclusions : LAT was rapid and easy to perform and showed the lowest sensitivity among the five test kits. ICG showed a good agreement with EIA and RT-PCR. EIA was the best in respect of sensitivity and specificity, but difficulty in interpretations of equivocal results and time-consuming procedures were limitations. In conclusion, ICG, which is easy to perform at a low cost, may be an optimal method in place of LAT for the detection of rotavirus.

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

3.9
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