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 Thomas, E E Articles by Curran, M Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Thomas, E E Articles by Curran, M

Evaluation of seven immunoassays for detection of rotavirus in pediatric stool samples.

Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, British Columbia's Children's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada.

ABSTRACT

The performance of seven commercially manufactured rotavirus assays was evaluated with 144 pediatric stool specimens and compared with electron microscopy (EM) findings. The four enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays used were Rotazyme II, Pathfinder, IDL rotavirus immunoassay, and Enzygnost (Behring) rotavirus assay. The three latex tests were Meritec rotavirus detection test, Virogen Rotatest, and Bartels rotavirus latex test. Test outcomes were compared with EM on the basis of sensitivity, specificity, positive-negative predictive value, and the kappa statistic. Relative to EM, Meritec had the highest specificity (97%), followed by Virogen (95%), IDL (91%), Pathfinder (85%), Behring (81%), Bartels (72%), and Rotazyme (71%). The sensitivities were as follows: Rotazyme (92%), Pathfinder (89%), Bartels (86%), Virogen (86%), Behring (82%), Meritec (71%), and IDL (75%). Patient age and sex did not influence test results. Owing to the absence of a true standard, the tests were also compared with each other on the basis of the kappa statistic, the frequency of positive test results, and the frequency of samples in which a test differed from all other tests. Using these measures, the assays could be classified into three groups with progressively decreasing utility: group 1 (Virogen, Meritec, IDL, and EM), group 2 (Pathfinder and Behring), and group 3 (Rotazyme and Bartels). Laboratory criteria were also compared. Latex tests were faster and required less equipment than enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. The Virogen latex assay showed the best overall performance, which made it our choice for rapid and accurate rotavirus diagnosis. However, in children who have gastrointestinal symptoms with negative rotavirus test results, EM will be useful until such time as immunological tests for other enteric viruses are available.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Liao, M., Zhang, S., Xuan, X., Zhang, G., Huang, X., Igarashi, I., Fujisaki, K. (2005). Development of Rapid Immunochromatographic Test with Recombinant NcSAG1 for Detection of Antibodies to Neospora caninum in Cattle. CVI 12: 885-887 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Eing, B. R., May, G., Baumeister, H. G., Kuhn, J. E. (2001). Evaluation of Two Enzyme Immunoassays for Detection of Human Rotaviruses in Fecal Specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39: 4532-4534 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Taha, M.-K. (2000). Simultaneous Approach for Nonculture PCR-Based Identification and Serogroup Prediction of Neisseria meningitidis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 38: 855-857 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Dennehy, P. H., Hartin, M., Nelson, S. M., Reising, S. F. (1999). Evaluation of the ImmunoCardSTAT! Rotavirus Assay for Detection of Group A Rotavirus in Fecal Specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 37: 1977-1979 [Abstract] [Full Text]