Dataset Information

Meta-Analysis of the Diagnostic Efficacy of the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel FAST v2 Assay for Respiratory Viral Infections.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Acute respiratory viral infections pose significant morbidity and mortality, making it essential to diagnose respiratory viral infections rapidly. In this study, the diagnostic efficacy of the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Virus Panel (RVP) FAST v2 test was evaluated on respiratory viral infections.

Materials and methods

Information was retrieved from electronic databases, including Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library, for systematic review. Studies that fulfilled predefined inclusion criteria were included. After the extraction of information, statistical software was utilized for quality evaluation, data analysis, and assessment of publication bias.

Results

Eighty groups in fourfold tables from nine articles were included to perform statistical analyses. Therein, the mean specificity and mean sensitivity of Luminex xTAG RVP FAST v2 test for the detection of respiratory viral infections were 0.99 (0.98-0.99) and 0.88 (0.87-0.90), respectively. Additionally, the negative and positive likelihood ratios were 0.14 (0.11-0.19) and 87.42 (61.88-123.50), respectively. Moreover, the diagnostic odds ratio and area under the curve of summary receiver operating characteristic were 714.80 and 0.9886, respectively.

Conclusion

The Luminex xTAG RVP FAST v2 test could be a reliable and rapid diagnostic method for multiple respiratory viral infections.

SUBMITTER: Xie LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8688366 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA broad spectrum of pathogens is causative for respiratory tract infections, but symptoms are mostly similar. Therefore, the identification of the causative viruses and bacteria is only feasible using multiplex PCR or several monoplex PCR tests in parallel.MethodsThe analytical sensitivity of three multiplex PCR assays, RespiFinder-19, RespiFinder-SMART-22 and xTAG-Respiratory-Virus-Panel-Fast-Assay (RVP), were compared to monoplex real-time PCR with quantified standardized control material. All assays include the most common respiratory pathogens.ResultsTo compare the analytical sensitivity of the multiplex assays, samples were inoculated with 13 different quantified viruses in the range of 10(1) to 10(5) copies/ml. Concordant results were received for rhinovirus, whereas the RVP detected influenzavirus, RSV and hMPV more frequently in low concentrations. The RespiFinder-19 and the RespiFinder-SMART-22 showed a higher analytical sensitivity for adenoviruses and coronaviruses, whereas the RVP was incapable to detect adenovirus and coronavirus in concentrations of 10(4) copies/ml. The RespiFinder-19 and RespiFinder-SMART-22A did not detect influenzaviruses (104 copies/ml) and RSV (10(3) copies/ml). The detection of all 13 viruses in one sample was only achieved using monoplex PCR. To analyze possible competitive amplification reactions between the different viruses, samples were further inoculated with only 4 different viruses in one sample. Compared to the detection of 13 viruses in parallel, only a few differences were found.The incidence of respiratory viruses was compared in tracheal secretion (TS) samples (n = 100) of mechanically ventilated patients in winter (n = 50) and summer (n = 50). In winter, respiratory viruses were detected in 32 TS samples (64%) by RespiFinder-19, whereas the detection rate with RVP was only 22%. The most frequent viruses were adenovirus (32%) and PIV-2 (20%). Multiple infections were detected in 16 TS samples (32%) by RespiFinder-19. Fewer infections were found in summer (RespiFinder-19: 20%; RVP: 6%). All positive results were verified using monoplex PCR.ConclusionsMultiplex PCR tests have a broad spectrum of pathogens to test at a time. Analysis of multiple inoculated samples revealed a different focus of the detected virus types by the three assays. Analysis of clinical samples showed a high concordance of detected viruses by the RespiFinder-19 compared to monoplex tests.