English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Two techniques for rapid diagnosis, immunofluorescence (IFAT) and enzyme immunoassay (EIA), have been compared with virus isolation in tissue culture for the detection of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in specimens of nasopharyngeal secretions. The specimens were obtained from children under five years of age suffering from acute respiratory illness, during a period of six months from January to June 1982. Of 471 specimens examined 54 (11.5%) were positive by virus isolation and 180 (38.2%) were positive by immunofluorescence. The bacterial contamination of inoculated tissue cultures unfortunately prevented the isolation of virus from many samples. Specimens from 216 children were tested to compare enzyme immunoassay and immunofluorescence. Of these 60 (27%) were positive by EIA and 121 (56%) were positive by IFAT. Our results suggest that the EIA technique although highly specific is rather insensitive. This may be because by the time these tests were done the original nasopharyngeal secretions were considerably diluted and contained more mucus fragments than the cell suspension used for IFAT. Of the three techniques, IFAT gives the best results although EIA may be useful where IFAT is not possible.

RS virus diagnosis: comparison of isolation, immunofluorescence and enzyme immunoassay