• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Indirect immunofluorescence technique versus polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of respiratory viruses in children admitted to a hospital in

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Rev Chilena Infectol. 2019 Feb;36(1):26-31. doi: 10.4067/S0716-10182019000100026.
[h=1][Indirect immunofluorescence technique versus polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of respiratory viruses in children admitted to a hospital in the Metropolitan Region].[/h] [Article in Spanish]
Corval?n L P[SUP]1[/SUP], Arias B G[SUP]2[/SUP], Morales S P[SUP]3[/SUP], Gonz?lez M R[SUP]4[/SUP], Inostroza S J[SUP]5[/SUP], Fuenzalida I L[SUP]2[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]

[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] Early viral detection in acute respiratory infections (ARI) is essential to establish appropriate therapy and prevent nosocomial transmission.
[h=4]OBJECTIVE:[/h] To compare the efficacy of indirect immunofluorescence technique (IIF) with the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to identify respiratory viruses in children hospitalized for ARI.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] 47 nasopharyngeal aspirates of children ≤ 2 years with ARI were included. IFI included respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), adenovirus, influenza A and B and parainfluenza. PCR also included the detection of metapneumovirus, enterovirus/rhinovirus, bocavirus and coronavirus. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (VPP/NPV) and kappa correlation for RSV were estimated by IIF compared to PCR.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] The IIF detected only RSV (29; 61.7%). PCR detected several viruses, including RSV in 26 cases (55.3%), followed by bocavirus (29.8%), rhinovirus/enterovirus (21.3%), adenovirus (14.9%) and parainfluenza (4,3%) among others, with 35.5% of coinfection. The IIF presented sensitivity: 85.7%, specificity: 73.6%, PPV: 82.7%, NPV: 77.7% and kappa: 0.5990 (95% CI, 0.3636-0.8346) for RSV.
[h=4]CONCLUSION:[/h] The IIF presents good sensitivity, but moderate specificity for RSV. However, IIF fails to detect other respiratory viruses. The introduction of PCR would improve the etiological diagnosis of ARI of viral origin.


PMID: 31095201 DOI: 10.4067/S0716-10182019000100026
Free full text
 
Back
Top Bottom