• 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.

Laboratory Impact of Rapid Molecular Tests used for the Detection of Respiratory Pathogens

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Clin Lab. 2018 Sep 1;64(9):1545-1551. doi: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2018.180411.
[h=1]Laboratory Impact of Rapid Molecular Tests used for the Detection of Respiratory Pathogens.[/h] Lee JM, Lee JH, Kim YK.
[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] With outbreaks of new respiratory viruses such as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and swine-origin influenza A/H1N1, the nucleic acid-based amplification test was introduced to identify causative agents. Multiplex PCR, which can simultaneously detect various respiratory pathogens, is currently used worldwide. Recently, a new type of multiplexed molecular test using a fully automated workflow system was developed, which was also adapted to our laboratory. In this study, we assessed improvements in laboratory practice brought about by the implementation of the rapid test for the detection of respiratory viruses.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] We investigated the number of routine and rapid tests conducted as well as the change in monthly test frequency of the routine test. We also analyzed the waiting time, turnaround time, and lead time for the routine and rapid tests. The Anyplex II RV16 detection kit (Seegene, Seoul, Korea) and Filmarray Respiratory Panel (BioFire Diagnostics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, USA) were used for the routine and rapid tests, respectively.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] Compared to the routine test, the rapid test significantly (p < 0.01) decreased the mean waiting time (1 hour 46 minutes), turnaround time (1 hour 45 minutes), and lead time (3 hours 32 minutes). After the implementation of the rapid test, the number of routine tests conducted was reduced over the 5-month period, from 13 times a month to 3 times a month.
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/h] The implementation of the rapid test for the detection of respiratory viruses improved the diagnostic efficiency of the laboratory and greatly reduced lead time.


PMID: 30274011
 
Back
Top Bottom