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 Anyplex II RV16 with the xTAG respiratory viral panel and Seeplex RV15 for detection of respiratory viruses.
    Author: Kim HK, Oh SH, Yun KA, Sung H, Kim MN.
    Journal: J Clin Microbiol; 2013 Apr; 51(4):1137-41. PubMed ID: 23363824.
    Abstract:
    A novel multiplex real-time PCR approach (Anyplex II RV16 [RV16]; Seegene, South Korea) was compared with a multiplex endpoint PCR kit (Seeplex RV15 ACE detection kit [RV15]; Seegene) and a liquid bead-based assay (xTAG respiratory viral panel [xTAG]; Abbott, United States). Of nasopharyngeal swabs or aspirates and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples submitted for RV15 testing, 199 retrospectively collected positive specimens and 283 prospectively collected specimens were further tested with RV16 and xTAG. A true-positive result was defined as a positive result from all three methods or RV16 and xTAG or RV15 and xTAG. For specimens with discrepant results, monoplex PCR and sequencing of the target viruses were performed. In total, 300 virus-positive specimens yielded 386 viruses. When the bocavirus results were excluded, the overall sensitivities of RV16, RV15, and xTAG were 95.2%, 93.3%, and 87.2%, respectively (95% confidence intervals, 93.0 to 97.4%, 90.8 to 95.8%, and 83.8 to 90.6%, respectively). RV16 was more sensitive than xTAG for coronavirus OC43/HKU1 (100% versus 26.1%; P < 0.0001) and adenovirus (100% versus 79.5%; P < 0.01) but was less sensitive than xTAG for rhinovirus/enterovirus (89.4% versus 97.9%; P < 0.05). RV16 demonstrated higher sensitivity than RV15 for the detection of adenovirus (100% versus 82.1%; P < 0.05). The specificities of all three methods ranged from 98.6% to 100%. Sequencing analysis of 64 rhinovirus-positive samples revealed that RV16 accurately differentiated between rhinovirus and enterovirus. RV16 most frequently missed rhinovirus C. In conclusion, the overall sensitivity of RV16 was better than that of xTAG. However, improvement of the sensitivity for rhinovirus is required.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]