4.3 Article

Comparison of two multiplex PCR assays for the detection of respiratory viral infections

期刊

CLINICAL RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 391-396

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/crj.12083

关键词

multiplex PCR; One-step RV; performance; respiratory virus; Seeplex RV

资金

  1. Konkuk University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Respiratory viruses are the main causes of upper and lower respiratory tract diseases. Rapid and accurate detection of respiratory viruses is crucial for appropriate patient treatment and prevention of endemic spread. Objectives: We compared two multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays for the detection of respiratory viral pathogens. Methods: A total of 245 respiratory specimens (229 sputum samples, 14 bronchoalveolar lavage samples, 6 nasal swabs, 3 throat swabs, 7 unknown) were analyzed using two multiplex assays: One-step RV real-time PCR (BioSewoom, Seoul, Korea) and Seeplex RV 12 Detection kit (Seegene, Seoul, Korea). The results were further confirmed using sequencing as a reference. Results: Among 245 samples (265 identifications including co-infections), the identification of respiratory viruses was 44.9% (119/265), 44.2% (117/265) and 45.3% (120/265) by One-step RV assay, Seeplex RV assay and sequencing, respectively. The concordance rate between One-step RV assay and sequencing was 95.5% (253/265), and that between Seeplex RV assay and sequencing was 89.8% (238/265) (P = 0.0189). The sensitivities of One-step RV and Seeplex RV assays were 94.1% [95% confidential interval (CI), 88.3%-97.6%] and 83.3% (95% CI, 75.4%-89.5%), respectively (P = 0.0002). The specificities of One-step RV and Seeplex RV assays were 96.6% (95% CI, 92.2%-98.9%) and 95.2% (95% CI, 90.3%-98.0%), respectively. Conclusion: Although the performances of One-step RV and Seeplex RV assays were overall comparable, One-step RV assay showed better sensitivity and concordance with sequencing. One-step RV assay can be a useful option for respiratory virus testing in clinical laboratories.

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

4.3
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