Key result
Conventional multiplex RT-PCR and real-time RT-PCR were more sensitive for detecting respiratory viruses (96.9% and 87.9%, respectively) than the Luminex xTAG RVP fast assay (68.3%).
Why the study?
Does in-house developed mRT-PCR and rtRT-PCR improve the detection of respiratory viruses compared to Luminex xTAG® RVP fast assay in respiratory clinical specimens?
Cross-Sectional (n=310)
Does in-house developed mRT-PCR and rtRT-PCR improve the detection of respiratory viruses compared to Luminex xTAG® RVP fast assay in respiratory clinical specimens?
In-house developed mRT-PCR and monoplex real time RT-PCR are more sensitive and cost-effective than the xTAG RVP fast assay for detecting respiratory viruses.
May enhance respiratory virus detection sensitivity over Luminex; leaves open routine replacement pending prospective validation.
Detection of respiratory viruses using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is sensitive, specific and cost effective, having huge potential for patient management. In this study, the performance of an in-house developed conventional multiplex RT-PCR (mRT-PCR), real time RT-PCR (rtRT-PCR) and Luminex xTAG(®) RVP fast assay (Luminex Diagnostics, Toronto, Canada) for the detection of respiratory viruses was compared. A total 310 respiratory clinical specimens predominantly from pediatric patients, referred for diagnosis of influenza A/H1N1pdm09 from August 2009 to March 2011 were tested to determine performance characteristic of the three methods. A total 193 (62.2%) samples were detected positive for one or more viruses by mRT-PCR, 175 (56.4%) samples by real time monoplex RT-PCR, and 138 (44.5%) samples by xTAG(®) RVP fast assay. The overall sensitivity of mRT-PCR was 96.9% (95% CI: 93.5, 98.8), rtRT-PCR 87.9% (95% CI: 82.5, 92.1) and xTAG(®) RVP fast was 68.3% (95% CI: 61.4, 74.6). Rhinovirus was detected most commonly followed by respiratory syncytial virus group B and influenza A/H1N1pdm09. The monoplex real time RT-PCR and in-house developed mRT-PCR are more sensitive, specific and cost effective than the xTAG(®) RVP fast assay.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Choudhary et al. (2015) conducted a cross-sectional in Respiratory viruses (n=310). Conventional multiplex RT-PCR and real time RT-PCR vs. Luminex xTAG RVP fast assay was evaluated on Overall sensitivity for the detection of respiratory viruses (95% CI 93.5-98.8). Conventional multiplex RT-PCR and real-time RT-PCR were more sensitive for detecting respiratory viruses (96.9% and 87.9%, respectively) than the Luminex xTAG RVP fast assay (68.3%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: