Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2007
[Adenovirus conjunctivitis diagnosis using RPS Adenodetector].
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Barbosa Junior José Bonifácio, Regatieri Caio Vinicius Saito, de Paiva Terezinha Maria, Benega Margareth Aparecida, Ishida Maria Akiko, Corrêa Kátia Oliveira, de Freitas Denise, Belfort Junior Rubens
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the RPS Adenodetector, a rapid immunochromatographic test, in the diagnosis of patients with clinical overt adenoviral conjunctivitis.
METHODS: Consecutive case series. Patients underwent conjunctiva scraping for RPS Adenodetector test and culture to identify adenovirus.
RESULTS: A total of 11 patients were studied, and 10 had unilateral disease. Five (45.5%) had symptoms for 2 days, 5 for three days, and 1 for 7 days. Adenovirus culture was positive in 8 patients (73%) and RPS Adenodetector was positive in 9 (82%) patients. Eight patients had adenovirus identification by both methods. In one patient the RPS Adenodetector was positive in contrast to a negative culture. The two patients revealing negative RPS Adenodetector results also had negative cultures. The sensitivity was 100% and the specificity was 67%.
CONCLUSION: The RPS Adenodetector is a useful tool in the rapid diagnosis of adenovirus conjunctivitis and may contribute to the spread control of this highly contagious disease.
METHODS: Consecutive case series. Patients underwent conjunctiva scraping for RPS Adenodetector test and culture to identify adenovirus.
RESULTS: A total of 11 patients were studied, and 10 had unilateral disease. Five (45.5%) had symptoms for 2 days, 5 for three days, and 1 for 7 days. Adenovirus culture was positive in 8 patients (73%) and RPS Adenodetector was positive in 9 (82%) patients. Eight patients had adenovirus identification by both methods. In one patient the RPS Adenodetector was positive in contrast to a negative culture. The two patients revealing negative RPS Adenodetector results also had negative cultures. The sensitivity was 100% and the specificity was 67%.
CONCLUSION: The RPS Adenodetector is a useful tool in the rapid diagnosis of adenovirus conjunctivitis and may contribute to the spread control of this highly contagious disease.