Why the study?
Does RT-PCR ELISA improve the detection rate of enteroviral infections compared to conventional RT-PCR and virus isolation in clinical specimens?
Does RT-PCR ELISA improve the detection rate of enteroviral infections compared to conventional RT-PCR and virus isolation in clinical specimens?
RT-PCR ELISA offers a more sensitive and rapid diagnostic alternative to conventional RT-PCR and viral culture for detecting enteroviral meningitis.
May aid enterovirus detection in aseptic meningitis; leaves open routine adoption pending prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Enteroviruses are known as major pathogen for aseptic meningitis. Although rapid diagnosis for enteroviruses is very essential to exclude bacterial infections in patients with meningitis, classical diagnostic method based on virus isolation is not practicable for timely treatment of patients due to its laborious and time-consuming procedure. Recently molecular methodologies as alternatives are routinely used for rapid and sensitive diagnosis for enteroviruses infections. METHODS: Reverse transcription (RT)-PCR ELISA kit for targeting 5' non-coding region (NCR) with highly conserved genetic identity among all genotypes of enteroviruses was introduced in this investigation. RT-PCR ELISA was evaluated about sensitivity and specificity through virus isolation using clinical specimens from patients suspected of enteroviral infections and enteroviral isolates comparing with conventional RT-PCR identifying them. RESULTS: The detection limit of the RT-PCR ELISA was up to 10-100 folds higher than virus isolation using cell culture and conventional RT-PCR. On comparison between above two methods, the detection rate of RT-PCR ELISA for clinical specimens from patients with aseptic meningitis was 7% higher than that of conventional RT-PCR targeting 5'NCR (P=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that RT-PCR ELISA developed in this study could be an alternative diagnostic method for the detection of enteroviral genome with high sensitivity and specificity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: