This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hildreth, S W Articles by Beaty, B J Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hildreth, S W Articles by Beaty, B J

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

J Clin Microbiol. 1987 June; 25(6): 976-981

Economic comparison of enzyme immunoassay and virus isolation procedures for surveillance of arboviruses in mosquito populations.

ABSTRACT

Cost-effectiveness analysis of an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for the surveillance of arboviruses was conducted. The EIA was compared with conventional virus isolation and serologic identification procedures (virus isolation procedures; VIP). Under most circumstances, EIA was more cost-effective than VIP. Costs for processing mosquito pools by VIP increased with the number of viruses included in the surveillance program and with the prevalence rate of each virus. In contrast to VIP, the prevalence rate did not affect costs for processing pools by EIA. In general, EIA was the most cost-effective procedure, followed by cell culture and mouse bioassays. In a 5-year cost-effectiveness analysis of a model surveillance program in which EIA and cell culture bioassays were used, the EIA again proved to be the most cost-effective assay procedure under most circumstances.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Hunt, A. R., Hall, R. A., Kerst, A. J., Nasci, R. S., Savage, H. M., Panella, N. A., Gottfried, K. L., Burkhalter, K. L., Roehrig, J. T. (2002). Detection of West Nile Virus Antigen in Mosquitoes and Avian Tissues by a Monoclonal Antibody-Based Capture Enzyme Immunoassay. J. Clin. Microbiol. 40: 2023-2030 [Abstract] [Full Text]