Key result
Real-time PCR detected enterovirus in 7.8% of clinical specimens compared to 4.0% by rapid cell culture, offering a more sensitive and reliable assay for routine daily use.
Why the study?
Does real-time PCR improve the detection of enterovirus infections compared to rapid cell culture in clinical specimens?
Population
640 clinical samples including faecal specimens, cerebrospinal fluid, throat swabs, biopsies, vesicular…
Comparison
Modified real-time PCR for the detection of… vs Rapid cell culture
Design
Other
Authors
Loading...
May increase enterovirus diagnostic yield; hypothesis-generating for routine PCR adoption pending outcome validation.
Observational (n=640)
Does real-time PCR improve the detection of enterovirus infections compared to rapid cell culture in clinical specimens?
Absolute Event Rate: 7.8% vs 4%
Real-time PCR is a more sensitive and reliable assay for detecting enteroviruses in clinical specimens compared to rapid culture, particularly in cerebrospinal fluid.
Doornum et al. (2007) conducted an observational in Enterovirus infection (n=640). Real-time PCR vs. Rapid cell culture was evaluated on Detection of enterovirus. Real-time PCR detected enterovirus in 7.8% of clinical specimens compared to 4.0% by rapid cell culture, offering a more sensitive and reliable assay for routine daily use.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: