1992•PubMedRequires access

[Detection of respiratory syncytial and adenovirus in nasopharyngeal aspirates: comparison of cellular cultures and immunofluorescence].

Graciela Torres, M Vicente

Open publisher page 5 citations

Abstract

Respiratory syncytial and adenovirus are 2 of the most important pathogens for respiratory infection in infancy. We compared the results of cellular cultures and immunofluorescence in the detection of these agents in nasopharyngeal exudates from hospitalized infants. Evidence for respiratory syncytial virus was searched in 776 samples. Immunofluorescence was much more sensitive, detecting 303 positive results, compared to only 142 for cell culture. Compared to immunofluorescence, the sensitivity and specificity of cell culture was 44% and 98%, respectively. Adenoviruses were investigated in 498 samples by both techniques. 88 positive results were identified by cell culture and only 30 by immunofluorescence. The sensitivity of immunofluorescence, compared to cell culture, was 31%, with a specificity of 99%. Thus, immunofluorescence is the technique of choice for detection of respiratory syncytial virus, while cell culture is preferable for adenovirus.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Respiratory syncytial and adenovirus are 2 of the most important pathogens for respiratory infection in infancy. We compared the results of cellular cultures and immunofluorescence in the detection of these agents in nasopharyngeal exudates from hospitalized infants. Evidence for respiratory syncytial virus was searched in 776 samples. Immunofluorescence was much more sensitive, detecting 303 positive results, compared to only 142 for cell culture. Compared to immunofluorescence, the sensitivity and specificity of cell culture was 44% and 98%, respectively. Adenoviruses were investigated in 498 samples by both techniques. 88 positive results were identified by cell culture and only 30 by immunofluorescence. The sensitivity of immunofluorescence, compared to cell culture, was 31%, with a specificity of 99%. Thus, immunofluorescence is the technique of choice for detection of respiratory syncytial virus, while cell culture is preferable for adenovirus.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Respiratory syncytial and adenovirus are 2 of the most important pathogens for respiratory infection in infancy. We compared the results of cellular cultures and immunofluorescence in the detection of these agents in nasopharyngeal exudates from hospitalized infants. Evidence for respiratory syncytial virus was searched in 776 samples. Immunofluorescence was much more sensitive, detecting 303 positive results, compared to only 142 for cell culture. Compared to immunofluorescence, the sensitivity and specificity of cell culture was 44% and 98%, respectively. Adenoviruses were investigated in 498 samples by both techniques. 88 positive results were identified by cell culture and only 30 by immunofluorescence. The sensitivity of immunofluorescence, compared to cell culture, was 31%, with a specificity of 99%. Thus, immunofluorescence is the technique of choice for detection of respiratory syncytial virus, while cell culture is preferable for adenovirus.

Key concepts: Immunofluorescence, Respiratory system, Virus, Indirect immunofluorescence, Cell culture, Virology, Biology, Cell

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
[Detection of respiratory syncytial and adenovirus in nasopharyngeal aspirates: comparison of cellular cultures and immunofluorescence]. — Research Paper | ScholarLens