Comparative evaluation of six commercialized multiplex PCR kits for the diagnosis of respiratory infections.

The molecular diagnosis of respiratory infection can be performed using different commercial multiplex-based PCR kits whose performances have been previously compared individually to those of conventional techniques. This study compared the practicability and the diagnostic performances of six CE-ma...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Sylvie Pillet, Marina Lardeux, Julia Dina, Florence Grattard, Paul Verhoeven, Jérôme Le Goff, Astrid Vabret, Bruno Pozzetto
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2013
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/e427f3369df1486da1ab6528940cc499
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:e427f3369df1486da1ab6528940cc499
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:e427f3369df1486da1ab6528940cc4992021-11-18T08:58:19ZComparative evaluation of six commercialized multiplex PCR kits for the diagnosis of respiratory infections.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0072174https://doaj.org/article/e427f3369df1486da1ab6528940cc4992013-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24058410/pdf/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203The molecular diagnosis of respiratory infection can be performed using different commercial multiplex-based PCR kits whose performances have been previously compared individually to those of conventional techniques. This study compared the practicability and the diagnostic performances of six CE-marked kits available in 2011 on the French market, including 2 detecting viruses and atypical bacteria (from Pathofinder and Seegene companies) and 4 detecting only viruses (from Abbott, Genomica, Qiagen and Seegene companies). The respective sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and agreement of each multiplex technique were calculated by comparison to commercial duplex PCR tests (Argene/bioMérieux) used as gold standard. Eighty-eight respiratory specimens with no pathogen (n = 11), single infections (n = 33) or co-infections (n = 44) were selected to cover 9 viruses or groups of viruses and 3 atypical bacteria. All samples were extracted using the NUCLISENS® easyMAG™ instrument (bioMérieux). The overall sensitivity ranged from 56.25% to 91.67% for viruses and was below 50% with both tests for bacteria. The overall specificity was excellent (>94% for all pathogens). For each tested kit, the overall agreement with the reference test was strong for viruses (kappa test >0.60) and moderate for bacteria. After the extraction step, the hands-on time varied from 50 min to 2h30 and the complete results were available in 2h30 to 9 h. The spectrum of tested agents and the technology used to reveal the PCR products as well as the laboratory organization are determinant for the selection of a kit.Sylvie PilletMarina LardeuxJulia DinaFlorence GrattardPaul VerhoevenJérôme Le GoffAstrid VabretBruno PozzettoPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 8, Iss 8, p e72174 (2013)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Sylvie Pillet Marina Lardeux Julia Dina Florence Grattard Paul Verhoeven Jérôme Le Goff Astrid Vabret Bruno Pozzetto Comparative evaluation of six commercialized multiplex PCR kits for the diagnosis of respiratory infections.
description	The molecular diagnosis of respiratory infection can be performed using different commercial multiplex-based PCR kits whose performances have been previously compared individually to those of conventional techniques. This study compared the practicability and the diagnostic performances of six CE-marked kits available in 2011 on the French market, including 2 detecting viruses and atypical bacteria (from Pathofinder and Seegene companies) and 4 detecting only viruses (from Abbott, Genomica, Qiagen and Seegene companies). The respective sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and agreement of each multiplex technique were calculated by comparison to commercial duplex PCR tests (Argene/bioMérieux) used as gold standard. Eighty-eight respiratory specimens with no pathogen (n = 11), single infections (n = 33) or co-infections (n = 44) were selected to cover 9 viruses or groups of viruses and 3 atypical bacteria. All samples were extracted using the NUCLISENS® easyMAG™ instrument (bioMérieux). The overall sensitivity ranged from 56.25% to 91.67% for viruses and was below 50% with both tests for bacteria. The overall specificity was excellent (>94% for all pathogens). For each tested kit, the overall agreement with the reference test was strong for viruses (kappa test >0.60) and moderate for bacteria. After the extraction step, the hands-on time varied from 50 min to 2h30 and the complete results were available in 2h30 to 9 h. The spectrum of tested agents and the technology used to reveal the PCR products as well as the laboratory organization are determinant for the selection of a kit.
format	article
author	Sylvie Pillet Marina Lardeux Julia Dina Florence Grattard Paul Verhoeven Jérôme Le Goff Astrid Vabret Bruno Pozzetto
author_facet	Sylvie Pillet Marina Lardeux Julia Dina Florence Grattard Paul Verhoeven Jérôme Le Goff Astrid Vabret Bruno Pozzetto
author_sort	Sylvie Pillet
title	Comparative evaluation of six commercialized multiplex PCR kits for the diagnosis of respiratory infections.
title_short	Comparative evaluation of six commercialized multiplex PCR kits for the diagnosis of respiratory infections.
title_full	Comparative evaluation of six commercialized multiplex PCR kits for the diagnosis of respiratory infections.
title_fullStr	Comparative evaluation of six commercialized multiplex PCR kits for the diagnosis of respiratory infections.
title_full_unstemmed	Comparative evaluation of six commercialized multiplex PCR kits for the diagnosis of respiratory infections.
title_sort	comparative evaluation of six commercialized multiplex pcr kits for the diagnosis of respiratory infections.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2013
url	https://doaj.org/article/e427f3369df1486da1ab6528940cc499
work_keys_str_mv	AT sylviepillet comparativeevaluationofsixcommercializedmultiplexpcrkitsforthediagnosisofrespiratoryinfections AT marinalardeux comparativeevaluationofsixcommercializedmultiplexpcrkitsforthediagnosisofrespiratoryinfections AT juliadina comparativeevaluationofsixcommercializedmultiplexpcrkitsforthediagnosisofrespiratoryinfections AT florencegrattard comparativeevaluationofsixcommercializedmultiplexpcrkitsforthediagnosisofrespiratoryinfections AT paulverhoeven comparativeevaluationofsixcommercializedmultiplexpcrkitsforthediagnosisofrespiratoryinfections AT jeromelegoff comparativeevaluationofsixcommercializedmultiplexpcrkitsforthediagnosisofrespiratoryinfections AT astridvabret comparativeevaluationofsixcommercializedmultiplexpcrkitsforthediagnosisofrespiratoryinfections AT brunopozzetto comparativeevaluationofsixcommercializedmultiplexpcrkitsforthediagnosisofrespiratoryinfections
_version_	1718421114984595456

Comparative evaluation of six commercialized multiplex PCR kits for the diagnosis of respiratory infections.

Ejemplares similares