1998
DOI: 10.1128/jcm.36.9.2652-2657.1998
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multicenter Evaluation of the Amplicor Enterovirus PCR Test with Cerebrospinal Fluid from Patients with Aseptic Meningitis

Abstract: The Amplicor Enterovirus PCR test was compared with viral culture for the detection of enteroviruses in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimens. In a multicenter study in which nine laboratories participated, a total of 476 CSF specimens were collected from patients with suspected aseptic meningitis. Sixty-eight samples were positive by PCR (14.4%), whereas 49 samples were positive by culture (10.4%), demonstrating that the Amplicor Enterovirus PCR test was significantly more sensitive than culture (P < 0.001).… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
12
0
2

Year Published

1999
1999
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
2
12
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…These figures were also similar to those reported for different amplification methods, such as the Roche Amplicor EV test [16], a real-time RT-PCR assay [21,35] and nucleic acid sequence-based amplification methodology [17,37]. As reported previously [16,30,36,38], there was a statistically significant improvement in the detection of enterovirus central nervous system disease with PCR compared to culture, and a very good correlation (80-85.9%) between the two assays [16,34]. Recently, Buck et al [39] compared a newly described shell vial assay, in which a mixture of human colon carcinoma and genetically engineered buffalo green monkey kidney cells (Super E-mix) was used, with two commercially available RT-PCR assays (one of which was the Enterovirus Consensus kit) and conventional cell culture for the diagnosis of enterovirus meningitis.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…These figures were also similar to those reported for different amplification methods, such as the Roche Amplicor EV test [16], a real-time RT-PCR assay [21,35] and nucleic acid sequence-based amplification methodology [17,37]. As reported previously [16,30,36,38], there was a statistically significant improvement in the detection of enterovirus central nervous system disease with PCR compared to culture, and a very good correlation (80-85.9%) between the two assays [16,34]. Recently, Buck et al [39] compared a newly described shell vial assay, in which a mixture of human colon carcinoma and genetically engineered buffalo green monkey kidney cells (Super E-mix) was used, with two commercially available RT-PCR assays (one of which was the Enterovirus Consensus kit) and conventional cell culture for the diagnosis of enterovirus meningitis.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Poliovirus and enterovirus A71 are infrequently detected in CSF from acute flaccid paralysis cases and more readily identified in stool, which may parallel the inability to detect enterovirus D68 in CSF in AFM cases with the virus more readily identified in respiratory specimens. 54,55 Biological plausibility and a strong epidemiological association support that enterovirus D68 is a nonpolio enterovirus capable of causing AFM and may have contributed to the recent increase in AFM cases in the United States in 2014. Investigation of the association between enterovirus D68 and AFM, as well as the role of other nonpolio enteroviruses and rhinoviruses in the etiology of AFM is ongoing.…”
Section: Etiological Investigationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our results indicate that this test has performance characteristics comparable to those of most in-house methods, and the time required to perform this test is less than that required to perform in-house methods. The Enterovirus Amplicor test has been validated for the detection of enteroviruses in CSF, where its superior sensitivity over cell culture methods has repeatedly been demonstrated (3,16,20,23,30,32,39,42). It has also been successfully used to detect enteroviruses in serum and throat swabs and, with somewhat reduced sensitivity compared to that of virus culture, in urine (2,3,28,34).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%