Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2019
Comparison of virological and serological methods for laboratory confirmation of rubella.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Uchino Kiyoko, Miyoshi Tatsuya, Mori Yoshio, Komase Katsuhiro, Okayama Fumika, Shibata Yuri, Yoshida Hisayoshi, Numata Tomizo, Takeda Makoto, Tanaka Tomoyuki
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Work toward rubella elimination has accelerated globally. A reliable laboratory confirmation of rubella-suspected cases is required for effective surveillance in the rubella-elimination phase. The use of adequate specimens is a key to improving the quality of this surveillance.
STUDY DESIGN: We conducted rubella virus (RUBV) isolation and RUBV genome or anti-RUBV IgM detection on 1023 specimens from 372 rubella- or measles-suspected cases collected through the national surveillance program in Sakai city of Osaka prefecture, Japan between 2011 and 2013. The resulting data were analyzed by specimen type, collection date, and immunological status.
RESULTS: Among the three specimen types (throat swab, serum or plasma, and urine) collected through 10 days post-rash onset, the highest success rates for RUBV genome detection and RUBV isolation were obtained using throat swabs. In agreement with previous work, RUBV-specific IgM were undetectable in 50% of the rubella-confirmed cases until 3 days after rash onset. The success rates of RUBV genome detection and RUBV isolation declined in association with the appearance of RUBV-specific antibodies in blood, especially in serum, plasma, or urine samples.
CONCLUSION: Throat swabs are the most optimal specimen types for both RUBV genome detection and RUBV isolation; serum/plasma samples may be suboptimal, especially for RUBV isolation. The findings from this study will provide useful information for improving laboratory surveillance for rubella in the elimination phase.
STUDY DESIGN: We conducted rubella virus (RUBV) isolation and RUBV genome or anti-RUBV IgM detection on 1023 specimens from 372 rubella- or measles-suspected cases collected through the national surveillance program in Sakai city of Osaka prefecture, Japan between 2011 and 2013. The resulting data were analyzed by specimen type, collection date, and immunological status.
RESULTS: Among the three specimen types (throat swab, serum or plasma, and urine) collected through 10 days post-rash onset, the highest success rates for RUBV genome detection and RUBV isolation were obtained using throat swabs. In agreement with previous work, RUBV-specific IgM were undetectable in 50% of the rubella-confirmed cases until 3 days after rash onset. The success rates of RUBV genome detection and RUBV isolation declined in association with the appearance of RUBV-specific antibodies in blood, especially in serum, plasma, or urine samples.
CONCLUSION: Throat swabs are the most optimal specimen types for both RUBV genome detection and RUBV isolation; serum/plasma samples may be suboptimal, especially for RUBV isolation. The findings from this study will provide useful information for improving laboratory surveillance for rubella in the elimination phase.