An evaluation of five commercially available kits for the diagnosis of rotavirus infection |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Laboratorio de Reproducción y Lactancia, Instituto de Medicina y Biología Experimental de Cuyo (IMBECU), CCT-CONICET Mendoza, Argentina;2. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Mendoza, Argentina;3. Instituto de Fisiología, Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Mendoza, Argentina;1. Research Institute of Forestry New Technology, Xiangshan Road, Beijing, l00091, China;2. Institute of Chemical Industry of Forest Products, CAF, Nanjing, 210042, China;3. Beijing Key Laboratory of Lignocellulosic Chemistry, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, 100083, China;1. State Key Laboratory of Biochemical Engineering, Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China;2. Department of Pediatrics, Capital Medical University Affiliated Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Beijing 100029, China;3. School of Chemical Engineering, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China;4. Shanghai Research Institute of Fragrance and Flavor Industry, Shanghai 200232, China;5. School of Perfume and Aroma Technology, Shanghai Institute of Technology, Shanghai 200233, China |
| |
| Abstract: | A total of 172 faecal specimens were examined by Rotazyme II, Wellcozyme Rotavirus, Wellcome Rotavirus Latex, Mercia Rota Screen and Bio Merieux Slidex Rota Kit. Assuming a true positive to be when two or more test systems were in agreement, analysis showed that 19 specimens gave positive results. Rota Screen proved to be the most consistent and reliable of the latex kits giving two false negatives, no false positive reactions, and no nonspecific reactions. Wellcome Rotavirus Latex showed one false negative and four non-specific reactions but 14 false positive reactions were observed. The Slidex Rota Kit proved insensitive on initial testing, detecting only nine of the positive specimens and showing thirteen “non-specific” reactions. On further examination after the filtration of specimens which gave aberrant results and testing with a different batch of reagents non-specific results were reduced to five but only 15 specimens were considered to give positive reactions. Both enzyme immunoassay (EIA) test systems proved to be slightly more sensitive than latex tests each producing positive results in 18 specimens. Rotazyme II, however proved to be less specific than Wellcozyme Rotavirus as four false positive reactions were noted, only one false positive reaction being detected with Wellcozyme Rotavirus. Both EIA methods failed to detect one positive specimen. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
