Why the study?
Do viral nucleic acids detected by PCR in the middle ear of children represent an acute otitis media pathogen or a bystander?
Do viral nucleic acids detected by PCR in the middle ear of children represent an acute otitis media pathogen or a bystander?
This review highlights the diagnostic uncertainty of using PCR to detect viral nucleic acids in middle ear fluid for acute otitis media, as they may represent either active pathogens or innocent bystanders.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Viral PCR detection in middle ear fluid warrants interpretive caution in acute otitis media; leaves open the pathogen versus bystander distinction for prospective trials.
Viruses play an important role in acute otitis media (AOM) pathogenesis, and live viruses may cause AOM in the absence of pathogenic bacteria. Detection of AOM pathogens generally relies on bacterial culture of middle ear fluid. When viral culture is used and live viruses are detected in the middle ear fluid of children with AOM, the viruses are generally accepted as AOM pathogens. Because viral culture is not sensitive and does not detect the comprehensive spectrum of respiratory viruses, polymerase chain reaction assays are commonly used to detect viral nucleic acids in the middle ear fluid. Although polymerase chain reaction assays have greatly increased the viral detection rate, new questions arise on the significance of viral nucleic acids detected in the middle ear because nucleic acids of multiple viruses are detected simultaneously, and nucleic acids of specific viruses are detected repeatedly and in a high proportion of asymptomatic children. This article first reviews the role of live viruses in AOM and presents the point-counterpoint arguments on whether viral nucleic acids in the middle ear represent an AOM pathogen or a bystander status. Although there is evidence to support both directions, helpful information for interpretation of the data and future research direction is outlined.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chonmaitree et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: