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 Dennehy, P H Articles by Tente, W E Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dennehy, P H Articles by Tente, W E

Comparison of nine commercial immunoassays for the detection of rotavirus in fecal specimens.

Department of Pediatrics, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.

ABSTRACT

One hundred fecal specimens obtained from patients with acute gastroenteritis were tested for rotavirus with nine commercial immunoassays to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of these assays. Kits evaluated included two monoclonal antibody-based enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) (Rotaclone and Pathfinder Rotavirus), three polyclonal antibody-based EIAs (Rotavirus Immunoassay, Rotazyme II, and Wellcozyme Rotavirus), and four latex agglutination assays (Rotastat, Virogen Rotatest, Meritec-Rotavirus, and The Wellcome Latex Test). Thirty-eight of the 100 specimens were found to contain rotavirus by a reference microplate EIA. The accuracy of the reference assay was determined by RNA electrophoresis and a blocking assay on discordant specimens. The two monoclonal antibody EIAs had superior sensitivities (100%) and identified two positive specimens which were negative by the reference method but positive by the blocking assay. Among the polyclonal EIAs, all had sensitivities of greater than 90%, but specificities were variable; Rotazyme II, with a specificity of 50%, showed considerable discrepancy from other polyclonal EIAs. The latex tests had sensitivities ranging from 70 to 90% and specificities of 80 to 100%. Latex agglutination tests were more rapid than EIAs and did not require expensive equipment. The final choice of assay system will depend on the cost, speed, and accuracy requirements of the clinical laboratory.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• 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]