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%).
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.
Absolute Event Rate: 96.9% vs 68.3%
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.
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: