Why the study?
How do ELISAs compare to reverse transcription-PCR for the diagnosis of enterovirus infections?
How do ELISAs compare to reverse transcription-PCR for the diagnosis of enterovirus infections?
ELISAs have a limited role in diagnosing enterovirus infections compared to PCR, mainly useful when PCR is unavailable or specimens are unsuitable.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ELISAs may have limited diagnostic utility versus PCR for enterovirus; leaves open their role when PCR unavailable.
PCR for the diagnosis of enterovirus infections is resource intensive but is increasingly used due to wide availability. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) that detect heterotypical antibodies against enterovirus immunoglobulin M (IgM), IgA, and IgG were compared with reverse transcription-PCR by using primers specific to the 5' untranslated regions of 60 enterovirus species. The ELISAs were less sensitive than the PCR, and only the ELISA for IgM was highly specific. When retrospective diagnosis is important or when specimens are unsuitable for PCR, the ELISA has a limited role if PCR is not available.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Craig et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: