首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Clinical Microbiology >Comparison of Six Real-Time PCR Assays for Qualitative Detection of Cytomegalovirus in Clinical Specimens
【2h】

Comparison of Six Real-Time PCR Assays for Qualitative Detection of Cytomegalovirus in Clinical Specimens

机译:定性检测临床标本中巨细胞病毒的六种实时PCR分析方法的比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

In this study, we compared the performance of six real-time PCR assays for the qualitative detection of cytomegalovirus (CMV) in clinical samples other than plasma. Two hundred specimens (respiratory [n = 72], urine [n = 67], cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] [n = 25], tissue [n = 18], amniotic fluid [n = 10], and bone marrow [n = 8]) submitted for routine testing by CMV real-time PCR analyte-specific reagents (ASR) (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN) were also tested by a laboratory-developed test (LDT) and 4 commercially available PCR assays: EraGen Multicode (Luminex, Austin, TX), Focus Simplexa (Focus Diagnostics, Cypress, CA), Elitech MGB Alert CMV (Fisher Scientific, Hanover Park, IL), and Abbott CMV (Abbott Park, IL). Nucleic acid was extracted using the MagNA Pure system (Roche Diagnostics) and subsequently tested by each PCR method. Results were analyzed by comparing each assay to a “consensus result,” which was defined as the result obtained from at least 4 of the 6 assays. In addition to the prospective samples, 13 lower respiratory samples with known positive results by CMV shell vial were tested by each PCR method. Following testing of the 200 prospective specimens, the Abbott, Elitech, EraGen, and Focus PCR assays demonstrated a sensitivity of 100% (46/46), while the Roche analyte-specific reagents (ASR) and LDT showed sensitivities of 89% (41/46) and 98% (45/46), respectively. Percent specificities ranged from 97% (149/154) by Elitech to 100% (154/154) by the LDT. Among the 13 shell vial-positive lower respiratory samples, the percent sensitivities ranged from 69% (9/13) by Elitech to 92% (12/13) by the LDT. The Abbott, EraGen, Elitech, Focus, and LDT PCR assays performed similarly (κ ≥ 0.89) for the detection of CMV in clinical specimens and demonstrated increased sensitivity compared to the Roche ASR.
机译:在这项研究中,我们比较了六种实时PCR分析法对定性检测血浆以外的临床样本中巨细胞病毒(CMV)的性能。 200个标本(呼吸[n = 72],尿液[n = 67],脑脊液[CSF] [n = 25],组织[n = 18],羊水[n = 10]和骨髓[n = 8])提交给通过CMV实时PCR进行常规测试的分析物特异性试剂(ASR)(Roche Diagnostics,印第安纳波利斯,印第安那州),也通过实验室开发的测试(LDT)和4种市售PCR分析进行了测试:EraGen Multicode( Luminex(德克萨斯州奥斯汀),Focus Simplexa(Focus Diagnostics,加利福尼亚州赛普拉斯),Elitech MGB Alert CMV(伊利诺伊州汉诺威公园的费舍尔科学公司)和Abbott CMV(伊利诺伊州阿伯特公园)。使用MagNA Pure系统(Roche Diagnostics)提取核酸,然后通过每种PCR方法进行测试。通过将每个测定与“共识结果”进行比较来分析结果,“共识结果”定义为从6种测定中的至少4种获得的结果。除了前瞻性样本外,每种PCR方法还检测了13例CMV外壳样品的已知阳性结果的下呼吸道样本。在对200个预期样本进行测试之后,Abbott,Elitech,EraGen和Focus PCR分析的灵敏度为100%(46/46),而罗氏分析物特异性试剂(ASR)和LDT的灵敏度为89%(41)。 / 46)和98%(45/46)。特异性百分比范围从Elitech的97%(149/154)到LDT的100%(154/154)。在13个壳小瓶阳性的下呼吸道样本中,敏感性百分比范围从Elitech的69%(9/13)到LDT的92%(12/13)不等。 Abbott,EraGen,Elitech,Focus和LDT PCR检测在检测临床标本中的CMV方面表现相似(κ≥0.89),与罗氏ASR相比,其敏感性更高。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号