Suppr超能文献

两种快速检测呼吸道合胞病毒(RSV)的方法(Testpack RSV和ortho RSV ELISA)与直接免疫荧光法和病毒分离法在诊断儿童RSV感染中的比较。

Comparison of two rapid methods for detection of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) (Testpack RSV and ortho RSV ELISA) with direct immunofluorescence and virus isolation for the diagnosis of pediatric RSV infection.

作者信息

Thomas E E, Book L E

机构信息

Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

出版信息

J Clin Microbiol. 1991 Mar;29(3):632-5. doi: 10.1128/jcm.29.3.632-635.1991.

Abstract

The ability of two commercial immunoassays to detect respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in respiratory specimens was evaluated as follows: 152 specimens were tested by TestPack RSV (Abbott), and 72 were tested by Ortho RSV ELISA (Ortho). Test outcomes were compared with those of virus isolation alone, direct immunofluorescence assay (DFA) alone, or virus isolation and/or DFA. TestPack RSV versus virus isolation showed 91% sensitivity, 96% specificity, 93% positive predictive value (PPV), and 95% negative predictive value (NPV). TestPack RSV versus DFA showed 89% sensitivity, 97% specificity, 96% PPV, and 93% NPV. When TestPack RSV performance was compared with that of virus isolation and DFA, the sensitivity was 87% and the specificity was 100%. Ortho RSV ELISA versus virus isolation showed 88% sensitivity, 87% specificity, 79% PPV, and 93% NPV. Ortho RSV ELISA versus DFA showed 91% sensitivity, 88% specificity, 81% PPV and 95% NPV. When Ortho RSV ELISA performance was compared with that of virus isolation and DFA, the sensitivity was 86%, the specificity was 89%, the PPV was 86%, and the NPV was 89%. The accuracy of the TestPack RSV in combination with ease of performance and no need for specialized equipment or special skills make it an attractive alternative to DFA for rapid direct detection of RSV.

摘要

对两种商用免疫测定法检测呼吸道标本中呼吸道合胞病毒(RSV)的能力进行了如下评估:152份标本采用TestPack RSV(雅培公司)检测,72份标本采用奥索RSV酶联免疫吸附测定法(奥索公司)检测。将检测结果与单独进行病毒分离、直接免疫荧光测定法(DFA)或病毒分离和/或DFA的结果进行比较。TestPack RSV与病毒分离相比,敏感性为91%,特异性为96%,阳性预测值(PPV)为93%,阴性预测值(NPV)为95%。TestPack RSV与DFA相比,敏感性为89%,特异性为97%,PPV为96%,NPV为93%。当将TestPack RSV的性能与病毒分离和DFA的性能进行比较时,敏感性为87%,特异性为100%。奥索RSV酶联免疫吸附测定法与病毒分离相比,敏感性为88%,特异性为87%,PPV为79%,NPV为93%。奥索RSV酶联免疫吸附测定法与DFA相比,敏感性为91%,特异性为88%,PPV为81%,NPV为95%。当将奥索RSV酶联免疫吸附测定法的性能与病毒分离和DFA的性能进行比较时,敏感性为86%,特异性为89%,PPV为86%,NPV为89%。TestPack RSV的准确性、操作简便以及无需专门设备或特殊技能,使其成为DFA快速直接检测RSV的一种有吸引力的替代方法。

相似文献

7
Evaluation of five methods for respiratory syncytial virus detection.五种呼吸道合胞病毒检测方法的评估
J Clin Microbiol. 1990 May;28(5):1021-5. doi: 10.1128/jcm.28.5.1021-1025.1990.

引用本文的文献

2
Opportunities for rapid viral diagnosis.快速病毒诊断的机会。
Clin Microbiol Newsl. 1993 May 1;15(9):65-69. doi: 10.1016/0196-4399(93)90015-F. Epub 2002 Nov 14.
9
Respiratory syncytial virus infection in the elderly.老年人呼吸道合胞病毒感染
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1996 Oct;15(10):777-81. doi: 10.1007/BF01701518.

本文引用的文献

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验