Page 2

Page 2
Coronavirus Tests - Does PCR Testing For Nasopharyngeal Ascertain Rheumatic Fever?
The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) conducted a study involving the use of coronavirus tests in clinical settings. In this study, participants with laboratory confirmed or probable acute respiratory infections (rheumatic fever, upper respiratory tract infection or upper respiratory infection) were asked to participate and to provide specimens for virus testing through blood draws. The goal of the project was to understand whether PCR-confirmed diagnoses can be distinguished from laboratory diagnoses, and to determine if viral load can be associated with symptoms, and viral loads in patients who did not have respiratory illnesses. Read more great facts on medical testing kits, click here.

The test used in this study is the same as the one that is often used in the emergency department (ED) to confirm pneumonia. A swab of an infected mucous secreted from the nose or throat contains a large number of copies of a specific virus. The virus can be detected by the use of a multiplex enzyme immunoassay. For more useful reference regarding medical equipment, have a peek here.

This test will not tell the difference between lab-confirmed and suspected cases of respiratory illness. The difference is usually in the type of specimen used in the test. PCR-confirmed viral load can be determined by the use of a viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR). There are no studies that indicate that a negative result on PCR-confirmed virus-like particle tests alone is enough to make a diagnosis, but it is possible to rule out some patients by conducting a laboratory test and PCR.

However, there is some evidence that some patients who show positive results on PCR-confirmed tests may have laboratory-confirmed respiratory illnesses. PCR may be more sensitive than the standard test, but the lack of a viral load control group makes it difficult to compare PCR results with lab confirmed cases. If the absence of a viral load control group makes the PCR test too sensitive, it may not be useful in deciding the diagnosis of patients who show positive results on PCR-confirmed tests, but negative results on other tests.

It is not clear how many patients with PCR-confirmed virus-like particle (VLNP) tests would have been diagnosed with laboratory diagnosis if PCR had not been available. Of the subjects who had tested positive on PCR, many of them also had laboratory confirmed diagnoses, including pneumonia, bronchitis, bronchiolitis and upper respiratory tract infection.

The study found that more than half of the participants had positive results on nasopharyngeal aspirates, as well as high titre of virus in nasal secretions. {takes. These results could be used to identify viral loads, which was then compared with laboratory diagnosis for any significant association with respiratory illness. However, this was a small study and the associations were not statistically significant. Please view this site  for further  details.