Literature DB >> 9077426

Evaluation of six commercially available kits using purified heterophile antigen for the rapid diagnosis of infectious mononucleosis compared with Epstein-Barr virus-specific serology.

F Elgh1, M Linderholm.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Novel commercial kits based on antibody reactivity to purified heterophile antigens have recently been introduced for the diagnosis of Epstein-Barr (EB) virus-associated infectious mononucleosis (IM). It is important to determine possible improvements in the performance and reliability of such tests for the diagnosis of IM.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability of six commercially available kits for the rapid diagnosis of IM in comparison to EB-virus-specific serology. STUDY
DESIGN: In total, 100 sera, 53 from patients with serologically verified primary EB virus infection and 47 from EB-virus-immune or -susceptible patients, were used to evaluate the six rapid test kits: Monolatex, Mono-Latex, Mono-Lex (latex agglutination-based kits), Mono-Plus, IM-Check and Clearview IM (solid-phase-based kits). EB-virus-specific serologies including detection of viral capsid antigen IgM and IgG and EB nuclear antigen-1 IgG, were used as reference methods.
RESULTS: Compared with the reference methods, the sensitivities and specificities of the heterophile antibody test kits were 70-92% and 96-100%, respectively. IM-Check had a low sensitivity and was difficult to read. The remaining kits performed well.
CONCLUSION: Monolatex, Mono-Latex, Mono-Lex, Mono-Plus and Clearview IM can be recommended for the confirmation of EB-virus-associated infectious mononucleosis. Clearview IM combined a high sensitivity and specificity with very simple one-step solid-phase-based procedure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 9077426     DOI: 10.1016/s0928-0197(96)00245-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Diagn Virol        ISSN: 0928-0197


  9 in total

1.  Screening for glandular fever in patients with Quinsy: is it necessary?

Authors:  M M Shareef; N Balaji; P Adi-Romero
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2007-06-14       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Evaluation of 12 commercial tests for detection of Epstein-Barr virus-specific and heterophile antibodies.

Authors:  A L Bruu; R Hjetland; E Holter; L Mortensen; O Natås; W Petterson; A G Skar; T Skarpaas; T Tjade; B Asjø
Journal:  Clin Diagn Lab Immunol       Date:  2000-05

3.  Infectious mononucleosis screening in quinsy patients.

Authors:  Umear A Ahmad; Shahram Anari
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Return to play after infectious mononucleosis.

Authors:  Jonathan A Becker; Julie Anne Smith
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 3.843

5.  Traumatic Haemorrhagic Cervical Lymphadenopathy with Underlying Infectious Mononucleosis.

Authors:  George Rahmani; Sarah Power
Journal:  Case Rep Radiol       Date:  2017-10-18

Review 6.  Controversies in the management of acute tonsillitis: an evidence-based review.

Authors:  J H Bird; T C Biggs; E V King
Journal:  Clin Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.597

7.  Evaluation of the Serological Point-of-Care Testing of Infectious Mononucleosis by Data of External Quality Control Samples.

Authors:  Salla J Kiiskinen; Oskari Luomala; Teija Häkkinen; Susanna Lukinmaa-Åberg; Anja Siitonen
Journal:  Microbiol Insights       Date:  2020-12-03

8.  Case report: a diagnostically challenging conjunctival mass caused by the Epstein-Barr virus.

Authors:  Jordan V Chervenkoff; Saul N Rajak; Paul G Brittain; David A Wright; Victoria J M Barrett
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 2.209

9.  Limited Utility of Serology and Heterophile Test in the Early Diagnosis of Epstein-Barr Virus Mononucleosis in a Child after Renal Transplantation.

Authors:  Alexandra Byrne; Rachel Bush; Felicia Johns; Kiran Upadhyay
Journal:  Medicines (Basel)       Date:  2020-04-22
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.