“… Method | Advantages | Disadvantages | References |
Cell culture systems | Isolate wide variety of viruses (including mixed cultures & unanticipated agents); Highly sensitive over rapid antigen tests; Antiviral susceptibility testing, epidemiologic studies and serotyping possible | Technical expertise required to read cytopathic effect; Long incubation period for most viruses; Needs an in-house procurement and maintenance of a variety of cell culture forms | [ 6 , 17 ] |
IF assays | Usually exhibits good sensitivity and excellent specificity | Not as sensitive as cell cultures; Not useful for all viruses; Requires trained experienced hands in reading results; poor adenovirus sensitivity | [ 17 , 18 ] |
Molecular approach (Nucleic acid detection) | Excellent specificity and sensitivity; Quick turnaround using PCR in real time; Suitable for viruses which cannot be cultivated in conventional cell cultures | FDA-cleared kits and approved protocols not commonly available for most viruses; In-house technical skills needed to establish and standardize the methods; expensive instrumentation; Highly specific probes and primers (may skip mutated virus); Detects only the sought viruses and may miss mixed infections and unexpected agents in most cases; Most assays available only at research labs | [ [19] , [20] , [21] ] |
Electrochemical biosensors | Rapid response, cost-effective, robust, easy to miniaturize, excellent detection limits, requires less sample volume, has the ability to be used in turbid biological fluids with optically absorbing and fluorescent molecules. Conversion to a sensor device significantly reduces cost of analysis, saves time & enable regions with limited resources to perform healthcare diagnostics without the need of trained professionals | Sensitive to sample matrix effects; Not as sensitive as conventional methods; Lower shelf life | [ [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] ] |
…”