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...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2013-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24058410/pdf/?tool=EBI |
| _version_ | 1818459579680292864 |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-14T23:16:36Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e427f3369df1486da1ab6528940cc499 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-14T23:16:36Z |
| publishDate | 2013-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-e427f3369df1486da1ab6528940cc4992022-12-21T22:44:05ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032013-01-0188e7217410.1371/journal.pone.0072174Comparative evaluation of six commercialized multiplex PCR kits for the diagnosis of respiratory infections.Sylvie PilletMarina LardeuxJulia DinaFlorence GrattardPaul VerhoevenJérôme Le GoffAstrid VabretBruno PozzettoThe 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.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24058410/pdf/?tool=EBI |
| spellingShingle | 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. PLoS ONE |
| title | 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_short | 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 |
| url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24058410/pdf/?tool=EBI |
| 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 |