Comparison of six methods for detecting human rotavirus in stools

Morinet, F.; Ferchal, F; Colimon, R.; Pérol, Y

doi:10.1007/bf02014331

Cited by 48 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In summary, it turned out that the EIAs were equivalent with respect to their sensitivities and were comparable or even slightly superior to EM. This is in concordance with the majority of publications covering this subject (4,5,8,12,13,15,17,18). Some investigators have postulated that EIAs are probably a better standard method for detection of rotaviruses than is EM due to the low sensitivity of the latter (2, 5); however, in these studies EM was performed without ultracentrifugation of samples, which has been demonstrated to be an essential step in achieving maximum sensitivity (7).…”

Section: %]) Because the Pathfinder Test Issupporting

confidence: 68%

Evaluation of Two Enzyme Immunoassays for Detection of Human Rotaviruses in Fecal Specimens

Eing¹,

May²,

Baumeister³

et al. 2001

J Clin Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The two assays evaluated in this study (the Ridascreen rotavirus and the Pathfinder rotavirus) exhibited comparable sensitivities (100%) but highly divergent positive predictive values (93.74 and 57.7%, respectively) when compared on 393 specimens. This difference should be considered when using these tests on collectives with an unknown or low prevalence.Enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) have replaced electron micoscropy (EM) as the standard method for the detection of rotaviruses in stool samples in the 1980s (1, 3-6, 8-13, 15-18). Typically, these assays are applied on stool specimens from children younger than 2 years with diarrheal disease. Since the past few years, however, we have observed an increasing tendency in clinical practice to include antigen detection assays in pretransplantation evaluation protocols. Therefore, in the present study we examined the impact of this strategy on the predictive values of two representative commercial test kits for rotavirus antigen detection in stool samples: the Ridascreen rotavirus (R-Biopharm, Darmstadt, Germany) as an automated test in microtiter plate format and the Pathfinder rotavirus (Kallestadt, Austin, Tex.) as a manually performed test designed for small series or single specimens. EM served as a supportive method for defining a formal "gold standard."As a high-risk collective for our study, 192 stool samples were acquired from the pediatric unit of the university hospital of Münster during the rotavirus season in 1997 to 1998, which were either submitted with the clinical diagnosis of enteritis or macroscopically liquid (mostly both). As a low-prevalence collective, 201 formed stools from healthy adults were randomly selected from a series of routine examinations from the Institute of Public Health, North Rhine-Westfalia. Both EIAs were performed exactly as specified by the manufacturers. Specimens exhibiting borderline results were retested once, and the latter result was used for evaluation. EM was performed by standard methods with negative staining after concentration of virus particles at 100,000 ϫ g (7). Specimens without clearly recognizable virus particles were considered negative after an examination time of 20 min at ϫ50,000 magnification. To define a formal gold standard, all samples which had positive results in at least two of the three methods were regarded as true positive.An overview of the results is shown in Table 1. A total of 15 samples in this study were considered true positive; 14 of these were recognized by EM (sensitivity, 93.9%), and none of the negative samples was wrongly considered positive (specificity, 100% [ Table 1]). The Pathfinder test recognized all positive samples as positive (sensitivity, 100%) but gave 11 false-positive results (specificity, 79.1% [ Table 1]), 1 of which emerged after retesting a primarily borderline specimen (specimen 1302 [ Table 2]). The Ridascreen test also recognized all true-positive specimens, but it gave one false positive result (sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 99.73%). A detailed analysis of the ...

show abstract

Section: %]) Because the Pathfinder Test Issupporting

confidence: 68%

Evaluation of Two Enzyme Immunoassays for Detection of Human Rotaviruses in Fecal Specimens

Eing¹,

May²,

Baumeister³

et al. 2001

J Clin Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The grids were examined with a Jeol-Jem-100S electron microscope (Japanese Electron Optics, Beabody, Mass., U.S.A.) at a magnification of 40 000X. A latex agglutination (LA) method was used to detect rotavixus antigen (Haikala et al, 1983;Morinet et al, 1984): 20 u[ of the fecal suspension from each sample was mixed with an equal amount of LA reagent on a glass slide from each sample. Negative controls were also made.…”

Section: Virologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Certain enteropathogens in calves of Finnish dairy herds with recurrent outbreaks of diarrhea

Pohjola¹,

Oksanen²,

Neuvonen³

et al. 1986

Preventive Veterinary Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pohjola, S., Oksanen, H., Neuvonen, E., Veijalainen, P. and Henriksson, K., 1986. Certain enteropathogens in calves of Finnish dairy herds with recurrent outbreaks of diarrhea. Prey. Vet. Med., 3: 547--558.The occurrence and distribution of certain enteropathogenic organisms and the manifestation of diarrhea, especially in relation to colostral management, were studied in neonatal calves of eight southern Finnish dairy herds with recurrent outbreaks of enteric disturbances. The fecal samples were obtained from the calves and were provided by the farmers. Potentially pathogenic agents were demonstrated in 52 of the 68 calves studied. Cryptosporidium was found in 36 of them while rotavirus was found in 29 and Escherichin coli in 15 of them, either singly or in combination. Salmonella, coronavirus or parvovirus were not detected in any of the calves. Twenty-six of the 36 calves contracted their Cryptosporidium infection and 18 of the 29 calves their rotavirus infection within the first week of life.Eighteen of the 52 infected calves developed diarrhea of microbial origin within 20 days of age; the most frequent finding was mixed infection with Cryptosporidium and rotavirus. In addition there were six diarrheic calves where no infection could be demonstrated. Only 10 of the 68 calves had neither infections nor diarrhea. There was a highly significant difference between the mean times of the first colostral feeding of the uninfected non-diarrheic and diarrheic calves and a significant difference between the mean times of the first colostral feeding of the subclinically infected and diarrheic calves. The importance of sucking of colostrum at the first feeding was observed. The smallest amount protecting the calves from infections was 0.75 1 given within 1 h of delivery.

show abstract

“…These include enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (EIA or ELISA), radioimmunoassay (RIA), latex particle agglutination (LA), and immunofluorescence (IF). Several com parisons of these assays with regard to sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values have been reported (55)(56)(57). In these com parisons the detection methods employing anti-rotavirus antibody, par ticularly EIA, have proven more sensitive than EM, although not necess arily more sensitive than IBM.…”

Section: Diagnostic Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rotavirus Gastroenteritis

Bartlett¹,

Bednarz-Prashad²,

DuPont³

et al. 1987

Annu. Rev. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rotaviruses have proven to be major causes of pediatric diarrheal disease morbidity and mortality worldwide. The past several years have yielded substantial new insights into these viruses, their epidemiology, and the mechanisms of host resistance to them. These insights have in turn resulted in development of several candidate rotavirus vaccine strains, bringing closer the possibility of effective protection of young children from rotavirus disease.

show abstract

Comparison of six methods for detecting human rotavirus in stools

Cited by 48 publications

References 29 publications

Evaluation of Two Enzyme Immunoassays for Detection of Human Rotaviruses in Fecal Specimens

Evaluation of Two Enzyme Immunoassays for Detection of Human Rotaviruses in Fecal Specimens

Certain enteropathogens in calves of Finnish dairy herds with recurrent outbreaks of diarrhea

Rotavirus Gastroenteritis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About