{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033168666196189134, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016231474947071278, 'mean_word_length': 5.626168224299065, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Evaluation of 5 methods for the diagnosis of infections by respiratory syncytial virus].

BACKGROUND
To compare and evaluate four different rapid methods of respiratory syncytial virus antigen detection with the isolation of the virus in cell culture.


METHOD
Ninety-eight nasopharyngeal swabs were studied, for respiratory syncytial virus isolation in Hep-2 cell line and for RSV antigen detection using direct immunofluorescence and three ELISA methods: Abbot RSV EIA (ELISA-1), RSV Antigen Detection System (ELISA-2) and Directigen RSV (Directigen).


RESULTS
Of all 98 samples studied using the five mentioned methods, 42 (43%) were positive for respiratory syncytial virus. The most sensitive methods were ELISA-1 (82%) and immunofluorescence (82%). The most specific ones were direct immunofluorescence (86%) and Directigen (84%). The higher percentage of concordant positive results with respiratory syncytial virus culture were direct immunofluorescence (84%) and Directigen (82%).


CONCLUSIONS
Rapid diagnostic methods for respiratory syncytial virus infection can not substitute the isolation method using cell line culture. We believe that respiratory syncytial virus isolation in cell culture combined direct with direct immunofluorescence or Directigen methods are the first choice diagnostic techniques for achieve a higher number of positive results in respiratory syncytial virus infected patients.