[Colloidal Gold and Dot-Elisa Rapid Tests for Screening Influenza A Virus].

Ning Jia,Zhong-qiang Yan,Gang Liu,Ding-xia Shen,Ji-jiang Suo,Yu-bin Xing,Yan Gao,Yun-xi Liu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12122/j.issn.1673-4254.2010.10.013
2010-01-01
Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of colloidal gold and dot ELISA rapid tests in clinical screening of influenza A virus.METHODS:The pharyngeal swabs were collected from 297 outpatients suspected of influenza between June and October, 2009 for detection with colloid gold and dot ELISA rapid test, with real-time PCR as the golden methods. The discrepant results of colloid gold and dot ELISA methods were confirmed by sequencing, and the diagnostic efficiency of the two methods was evaluated.RESULTS:Among the 166 samples with influenza A virus infection as confirmed by real-time PCR and sequencing, the diagnostic sensitivity of dot ELISA and colloid gold methods was 54.82% (91/166) and 4.22% (7/166), respectively. The total concordance rate with PCR was 66.67% (Kappa value of 0.35). Among the 133 samples negative for influenza A virus, the specificity of dot ELISA and colloid gold methods was 81.68% (107/131) and 98.47% (129/131), respectively, with a total concordance rate with PCR of 45.79% (Kappa value 0.02). Of the 99 H1N1 influenza samples confirmed by real-time PCR, the detection rate of dot ELISA was 67.3%, whereas that of colloid gold was 5.1%. Out of the 107 dot ELISA-positive but colloid gold-negative samples, 84 were confirmed to be influenza A virus-positive by real-time PCR and sequencing. One sample negative for dot ELISA but positive for colloid gold test was confirmed to be influenza A virus-negative. The detection rate and diagnostic concordance rate for influenza A virus by dot ELISA were significantly higher than those of colloid gold (P<0.05).CONCLUSION:Dot ELISA is better than colloid gold in influenza A virus detection and shows great prospect in clinical screening.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?