Ana Sayfa | Dergi Hakkında | Yayın Kurulu | Telif Hakkı Devir Formu | İçindekiler | Arşiv | Yayın Arama | Yazarlara Bilgi | İletişim  
2016, Cilt 46, Sayı 4, Sayfa(lar) 159-164
[ Türkçe Özet ] [ PDF ] [ Benzer Makaleler ]
Evaluation of the Performance of a Multiplex PCR Method for the Diagnosis of Viral Respiratory Tract Infections
Ayşe ARSLAN1, Candan ÇİÇEK1, Eylem Ulaş SAZ2, Figen GÜLEN2, Haydar Soydaner KARAKUŞ3
1Ege Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Tıbbi Mikrobiyoloji Anabilim Dalı, İzmir
2Ege Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Çocuk Sağlığı ve Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalı, İzmir
3Ege Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Göğüs Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalı, İzmir
Keywords: Multiplex PCR, respiratory viruses, respiratory tract infections

Objective: In this study, we aimed to compare multiplex PCR (mPCR) assay with conventional methods [direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) test and shell vial cell culture] for the detection of respiratory viruses in patients with acute respiratory tract infection and to evaluate the performance of the multiplex PCR method.

Materials and Methods: Between January 2012 and August 2013, nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected from 502 [43.2%) female, 285 (56.8%) male] patients with acute respiratory tract infection were analyzed. Shell vial cell culture and DFA were used as a gold standard method for the detection of respiratory viruses. Multiplex PCR test was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions.

Results: Two hundred and thirty-eight (47.4%) patients were positive for respiratory viruses as detected by at least one method. Among 502 specimens analyzed, 189 (37.6%) were positive using the combination of DFA and shell vial cell culture [excluding human metapneumovirus (HMPV), human coronavirus (HCoV), human rhinovirus (HRV), human bocavirus (HBoV), parainfluenza virus type 4 (PIV 4)], and 233 (46.4%) were positive by mPCR. Thirty-seven samples were excluded from the comparison, because HMPV, HCoV, HRV, HBoV, PIV 4 could not be detected by DFA and shell vial cell culture. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of mPCR were 97.3, 95.7, 93.9, 98.1 and 96.3%, respectively.

Conclusion: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), HRV and influenza virus type A (INF A) were the most frequently identified respiratory viruses in patients with respiratory tract infections. The sensitivity and specificity of mPCR were found to be quite high. Additionally mPCR could identify 37 respiratory viruses that DFA and cell culture could not. As the mPCR method was found to have high sensitivity and specificity. it was predicted to be suitable for use in routine laboratories.


[ Türkçe Özet ] [ PDF ] [ Benzer Makaleler ]
Ana Sayfa | Dergi Hakkında | Yayın Kurulu | Telif Hakkı Devir Formu | İçindekiler | Arşiv | Yayın Arama | Yazarlara Bilgi | İletişim