Comparison of the Detection of Influenza A and B Viruses by Different Methods

Özdemir, Mehmet; Yavru, Sibel; Baysal, Bülent

doi:10.1177/030006051204000639

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Contrary to other studies where the gel-based assay was less sensitive than the real-time RT-PCR assay and the sensitivity and specificity of the real-time RT-PCR relative to the gel-based RT-PCR was 100% and 95%, respectively [17,24]. The diagnostic specificity of conventional RT-PCR is 88.89%, confirmed by other studies as well [25]. The two discordant samples were positive by the realtime RT-PCR and negative by the RT-PCR, a discrepancy most likely due to the higher sensitivity of the real-time RT-PCR assay when compared to the gel-based RT-PCR.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Methods for Molecular Surveillance of Influenza Used in Macedonia

Bosevska

Janceska

Kuzmanovska

et al. 2014

Prilozi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim: To present and compare different Nucleic Acid Testing assays used for laboratory diagnosis of influenza virus infection in our country. Materials and methods: Respiratory samples used were nose and throat swabs. The RNA extraction was performed with a QIAamp viral RNA kit. During the season 2009–2010 the first 25 samples were tested with: conventional gel-based RT-PCR and CDC rtRT-PCR using published specific matrix and HA gene primers and probes for influenza virus typing and subtyping. Results: Of 25 samples tested with conventional RT-PCR 7(28%) were positive for influenza A, but negative for A/H1seasonal and A/H3. Retested with rtRT-PCR 9(36%) were positive for influenza A, 8(32%) were positive for A/H1pdm and 1(4%) was A/H3. Two samples positive with rtRT-PCR for influenza A were negative with RT-PCR. The sensitivity of the RT-PCR in comparison with rtRT-PCR is 100% and the specificity is 88.89%. Positive predictive value for RT-PCR is 77.78%, and negative predictive value is 100%. RT-PCR is a four-step and rtRT-PCR a one-step procedure. The turn-around time of RT-PCR is 6 hours and for rtRT-PCR it is 2 hours. Discussion and conclusion: For surveillance purposes nose and throat swabs are the more easy and practical to collect. It was proved that RT-PCR is too laborious, multi-step and time-consuming. The sensitivity of both assays is equal. The specificity of rtRT-PCR is higher. NAT assays for detection of influenza viruses have become an integral component of the surveillance programme in our country. They provide a fast, accurate and sensitive detection of influenza.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

“…The positive predictive value (the proportion of patients with positive results who have influenza) of an RT-PCR is lowest when influenza activity is low. The negative predictive value (the proportion of patients with negative results who do not have influenza) of an RT-PCR is highest when influenza activity is low [25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for Molecular Surveillance of Influenza Used in Macedonia

Bosevska

Janceska

Kuzmanovska

et al. 2014

Prilozi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the findings of the current study suggest FLU-PRO scores are reliable, valid, and responsive in this expanded target population, the study had several limitations. First, although patients were tested for influenza using RIDTs, the sensitivity and sensitivity of these tests for detecting influenza A or B can vary, and can differ pending the strain of influenza circulating during any given year [ 15 , 16 ]. Thus, it is likely that some ILI patients in this study were infected with influenza A or B.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of the inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) diary in patients with influenza-like illness (ILI)

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe inFLUenza Patient Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) measure is a daily diary assessing signs/symptoms of influenza across six body systems: Nose, Throat, Eyes, Chest/Respiratory, Gastrointestinal, Body/Systemic, developed and tested in adults with influenza.ObjectivesThis study tested the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of FLU-PRO scores in adults with influenza-like illness (ILI).MethodsData from the prospective, observational study used to develop and test the FLU-PRO in influenza virus positive patients were analyzed. Adults (≥18 years) presenting with influenza symptoms in outpatient settings in the US, UK, Mexico, and South America were enrolled, tested for influenza virus, and asked to complete the 37-item draft FLU-PRO daily for up to 14-days. Analyses were performed on data from patients testing negative. Reliability of the final, 32-item FLU-PRO was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha (α; Day 1) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC; 2-day reproducibility). Convergent and known-groups validity were assessed using patient global assessments of influenza severity (PGA). Patient report of return to usual health was used to assess responsiveness (Day 1–7).ResultsThe analytical sample included 220 ILI patients (mean age = 39.3, 64.1% female, 88.6% white). Sixty-one (28%) were hospitalized at some point in their illness. Internal consistency reliability (α) of FLU-PRO Total score was 0.90 and ranged from 0.72–0.86 for domain scores. Reproducibility (Day 1–2) was 0.64 for Total, ranging from 0.46–0.78 for domain scores. Day 1 FLU-PRO scores correlated (≥0.30) with the PGA (except Gastrointestinal) and were significantly different across PGA severity groups (Total: F = 81.7, p<0.001; subscales: F = 6.9–62.2; p<0.01). Mean score improvements Day 1–7 were significantly greater in patients reporting return to usual health compared with those who did not (p<0.05, Total and subscales, except Gastrointestinal and Eyes).ConclusionsResults suggest FLU-PRO scores are reliable, valid, and responsive in adults with influenza-like illness.

show abstract

“…According to the package insert, the sensitivity of the EIA utilized in this study was 77% for influenza A but only 69% for influenza B in clinical trials when the sample source was throat swab [6]. Additionally, Ozdemir et al observed that the sensitivity of PCR for detecting influenza B in clinical specimens was roughly half that for detecting influenza A when using shell vial culture as the gold standard: 40% and 77.4%, respectively [15]. The observed higher sensitivity of viral culture in diagnosing those with influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 versus (H1N1) and (H3N2) is likely reflective of the fact that BMTs accounted for a majority of cases of the former.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%