JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Halstead, D C
Right arrow Articles by Fritch, G
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Halstead, D C
Right arrow Articles by Fritch, G

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

J Clin Microbiol. 1990 May; 28(5): 1021-1025

Evaluation of five methods for respiratory syncytial virus detection.

D C Halstead, S Todd and G Fritch

HealthEast Laboratories, Allentown Hospital-Lehigh Valley Hospital Center, Pennsylvania 18103.

ABSTRACT

A total of 117 nasal aspirates were cultured for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and tested for RSV antigen by a direct fluorescent-antibody (DFA) test (Bartels Immunodiagnostic Supplies, Inc., Bellevue, Wash.), the Directigen enzyme immunoassay (EIA; Becton Dickinson Microbiology Systems, Cockeysville, Md.), the TestPack EIA (Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, Ill.), and RSV EIA (Abbott). Agreement of two of five methods or a positive RSV culture were required to validate a result. A total of 57 of 117 (48.7%) specimens were culture positive in HEp-2 cells, A549 cells, or both. A total of 5 of 117 (4.3%) additional specimens met the criteria of a positive specimen; i.e., 62 of 117 (53.0%) specimens were positive. Results obtained from 77 of 117 (65.8%) specimens were concordant for all five methods. The sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values for the culture and DFA methods were 91.9, 100, 100, and 91.7% and 91.9, 96.4, 96.6, and 91.4%, respectively. The sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values for the three EIA procedures, Directigen, TestPack, and RSV EIA, were 75.8, 80.0, 81.0, and 74.6%; 93.6, 100, 100, and 93.2%; and 71.0, 100, 100, and 75.3%, respectively. New self-contained EIA configurations and the DFA method offer attractive alternatives to the culture method. Technical simplicity, rapid turnaround time, performance, and cost must all be considered when selecting a system for RSV detection.


J Clin Microbiol. 1990 May; 28(5): 1021-1025




This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 1990 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.