Journal of Clinical Microbiology · 2013 · 250 citations · 21 references
Veterinary MedicineInfectious DiseasesMolecular DiagnosticsMolecular VirologyVirologyInfectious Disease Molecular TestingMultiplexed BiosensingRespiratory Pathogen DiagnosticsViral DiagnosticsMultiplex Assay DevelopmentMultiplex Diagnostic AssaysMultiplex DiagnosticsMultiplex Molecular TestingMultiplex Respiratory PanelsMultiplexed DiagnosticsRespiratory Pathogen TestingTest Performance Characteristics
There are several U.S. FDA-cleared molecular respiratory virus panels available today, each with advantages and disadvantages. This study compares four multiplex panels, the BioFire Diagnostics FilmArray RP (respiratory panel), the GenMark Dx eSensor RVP (respiratory viral panel), the Luminex xTAG RVPv1, and the Luminex xTAG RVP fast. Three hundred specimens (200 retrospective and 100 consecutive) were tested using all four platforms to determine performance characteristics. The overall sensitivity and specificity, respectively, and 95% confidence interval (CI; in parentheses) for each panel were as follows: FilmArray RP, 84.5% (79.2, 88.6) and 100% (96.2, 100); eSensor RVP, 98.3% (95.5, 99.5) and 99.2% (95.4, 100); xTAG RVPv1, 92.7% (88.5, 95.4) and 99.8% (96.0, 100); and xTAG RVP fast, 84.4% (78.5, 88.9) and 99.9% (96.1, 100). The sensitivity of each assay fluctuated by viral target, with the greatest discrepancies noted for adenovirus and influenza virus B detection. Hands-on time and time to result were recorded and ease of use was assessed to generate a complete profile of each assay.
21
Rapid and quantitative detection of human adenovirus DNA by real‐time PCR
Albert Heim, Carmen Ebnet, Gabi Harste et al. · Journal of Medical Virology · 2003 · 814 citations
Christine C. Ginocchio, Ryhana Manji, Suman Arora et al. · Journal of Clinical Virology · 2009 · 381 citations · Full text
Public Health, Infectious Disease Control, Infectious Diseases +15