These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of the GenMark Diagnostics eSensor respiratory viral panel to real-time PCR for detection of respiratory viruses in children.
    Author: Pierce VM, Hodinka RL.
    Journal: J Clin Microbiol; 2012 Nov; 50(11):3458-65. PubMed ID: 22875893.
    Abstract:
    A novel eSensor respiratory viral panel (eSensor RVP) multiplexed nucleic acid amplification test (GenMark Diagnostics, Inc., Carlsbad, CA) was compared to laboratory-developed real-time PCR assays for the detection of various respiratory viruses. A total of 250 frozen archived pediatric respiratory specimens previously characterized as either negative or positive for one or more viruses by real-time PCR were examined using the eSensor RVP. Overall agreement between the eSensor RVP and corresponding real-time PCR assays for shared analytes was 99.2% (kappa = 0.96 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.94 to 0.98]). The combined positive percent agreement was 95.4% (95% CI, 92.5 to 97.3); the negative percent agreement was 99.7% (95% CI, 99.4 to 99.8). The mean real-time PCR threshold cycle (C(T)) value for specimens with discordant results was 39.73 (95% CI, 38.03 to 41.43). Detection of coinfections and correct identification of influenza A virus subtypes were comparable between methods. Of note, the eSensor RVP rhinovirus assay was found to be more sensitive and specific than the corresponding rhinovirus real-time PCR. In contrast, the eSensor RVP adenovirus B, C, and E assays demonstrated some cross-reactivity when tested against known adenovirus serotypes representing groups A through F. The eSensor RVP is robust and relatively easy to perform, it involves a unique biosensor technology for target detection, and its multiplexed design allows for efficient and simultaneous interrogation of a single specimen for multiple viruses. Potential drawbacks include a slower turnaround time and the need to manipulate amplified product during the protocol, increasing the possibility of contamination.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]