Evaluation of three commercially available kits for serological diagnosis of dengue haemorrhagic fever

Chakravarti, Anita; Gur, Renu; Berry, Nidhika; Mathur, M

doi:10.1016/s0732-8893(99)00150-9

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…37,[40][41][42][43] Serum, blood on filter paper, 7,44,45 and more recently saliva are useful for IgM detection if samples are taken within the appropriate time frame (after five days of onset of fever). Different commercial kits [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] for anti-dengue IgM and IgG detection are available, with variable figures of sensitivity and specificity (see Table 1). …”

Section: Serological Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Dengue diagnosis, advances and challenges

Guzmán

Kourı́

2004

International Journal of Infectious Diseases

279

225

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dengue diagnosis was one of the topics discussed at the symposium 'The Global Threat of Dengue - Desperately Seeking Solutions' organized during the 10th International Congress of Infectious Diseases held in Singapore in 2002. In this paper, a review is presented focusing on the main advances, problems and challenges of dengue diagnosis.IgM capture ELISA, virus isolation in mosquito cell lines and live mosquitoes, dengue specific monoclonal antibodies and PCR have all represented major advances in dengue diagnosis. However, an appropriate rapid, early and accessible diagnostic method useful both for epidemiological surveillance and clinical diagnosis is still needed. Also, tools that suggest a prognosis allowing for better management are also needed. Finally, laboratory infrastructure, technical expertise and research capacity must be improved in endemic countries in order to positively influence dengue surveillance, clinical case management and the development of new approaches to dengue control.

show abstract

Section: Serological Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Dengue diagnosis, advances and challenges

Guzmán

Kourı́

2004

International Journal of Infectious Diseases

279

225

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…New EIA kits for detection of anti-dengue antibodies and antigens have been described [34,35,[42][43][44][45]. Some of them are less time-consuming and technically demanding than MAC-EIA, and claim specific and sensitive detection in both primary and secondary infections.…”

Section: Eiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in dengue diagnosis

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The conventional diagnosis of dengue virus infections includes the detection of the virus in serum or tissue samples, both by isolation in culture or through detection of specific viral molecules (genome RNA or dengue antigens) and detection of specific anti-dengue antibodies (serology). Isolation of dengue virus provides the most direct and conclusive approach to diagnosis, despite the demand for high-level equipment, technical skills and manpower. However, it is useless in early diagnosis because several days are required to isolate and classify the virus. Serology, despite being simpler, is not able to afford an accurate early diagnosis in primary infections because 4-5 days are required for the immune system to produce a sufficient amount of antibodies. Moreover, it leads to misleading results in secondary infections owing to cross-reactivity among serotype-specific antibodies and with other flavivirus antibodies. The RT-PCR and other PCR-based techniques are fast, serotype-discriminating, more sensitive and easier to carry out than conventional nucleic-acid hybridisation, but are handicapped by easy sample contamination and high technological demands. Recently, advances in bioelectronics have generated commercial kits and new techniques for detection of dengue antibodies and RNA, based on biosensor technology. Most of them are rapid, easy to operate, reusable, cheap, sensitive and serotype-specific. Nevertheless, their accuracy is still questionable because most still lack validation and standardisation. This review summarises and describes the techniques currently employed and anticipated in the near future for diagnosis of dengue disease.

show abstract

“…Several studies [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] have compared dengue RDTs with reference assays, but the diagnostic accuracy of the tests has not been reliably established with acute-phase specimens, largely because of the multiplicity of evaluation methodologies used. The present article documents a diagnostic accuracy assessment of 8 objectively selected dengue RDTs tested against a characterized panel of specimens.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“….5(8.5-75.5) 37.5(8.5-75.5) 75.0 (34 9. 96.8) 0 (0-36.9) 87.5 (47.4-99.7) 25.0 (3.2-65.1) 37.5 (8.5-75.5) 37.5 (8.5-75.5) 2 39 30.8 (17.0-47.6) 25.6 (13.0-42.1) 69.2 (52.4-83.0) 5.1 (0.6-17.3) 71.8 (55.1-85.0) 35.9 (21.2-52.8) 10.3 (2.9-24.2) 7.7 (1.6-20.9) 3 19 42.1 (20.3-66.5) 26.3 (9.2-51.2) 73.7 (48.8-90.9) 21.1 (6.1-45.6) 63.2 (38.4-83.7) 31.6 (12.6-56.6) 26.3 (9.2-51.2) 0 (0-17.7) 4 7 28.6 (3.7-71.0) 42.9 (9.9-81.6) 100 (59.0-100) 28.6 (3.7-71.0) 85.7 (42.1-99.6) 0 (0-41.0) 0 (0-41.0) 0 (0-41.0) 5 87 33.3 (23.6-44.3) 24.1 (15.6-34.5) 71.3 (60.6-80.5) 14.9 (8.2-24.2) 77.0 (66.8-85.4) 23.0 (14.6-33.3) 8.1 (3.3-15.9) 19.8 (12.4-29.2) Convalescence (overall) … 33.7 (26.5-41.6) 25.8 (19.2-33.2) 72.4 (64.9-79.1) 13.5 (8.7-19.7) 74.9 (67.5-81.3) 26.4 (19.8-33.8) 12.3 (7.7-18.3) 9.8 (5.7-15.5)False-positive reactivity for nondengue-infected patients.The IgM false-positive reactivity of RDTs when samples from nondengue-infected patients were tested is presented in table 5.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%