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 nine commercial immunoassays for the detection of rotavirus in fecal specimens.
    Author: Dennehy PH, Gauntlett DR, Tente WE.
    Journal: J Clin Microbiol; 1988 Sep; 26(9):1630-4. PubMed ID: 2846645.
    Abstract:
    One hundred fecal specimens obtained from patients with acute gastroenteritis were tested for rotavirus with nine commercial immunoassays to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of these assays. Kits evaluated included two monoclonal antibody-based enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) (Rotaclone and Pathfinder Rotavirus), three polyclonal antibody-based EIAs (Rotavirus Immunoassay, Rotazyme II, and Wellcozyme Rotavirus), and four latex agglutination assays (Rotastat, Virogen Rotatest, Meritec-Rotavirus, and The Wellcome Latex Test). Thirty-eight of the 100 specimens were found to contain rotavirus by a reference microplate EIA. The accuracy of the reference assay was determined by RNA electrophoresis and a blocking assay on discordant specimens. The two monoclonal antibody EIAs had superior sensitivities (100%) and identified two positive specimens which were negative by the reference method but positive by the blocking assay. Among the polyclonal EIAs, all had sensitivities of greater than 90%, but specificities were variable; Rotazyme II, with a specificity of 50%, showed considerable discrepancy from other polyclonal EIAs. The latex tests had sensitivities ranging from 70 to 90% and specificities of 80 to 100%. Latex agglutination tests were more rapid than EIAs and did not require expensive equipment. The final choice of assay system will depend on the cost, speed, and accuracy requirements of the clinical laboratory.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]