Table 10.1.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Various Diagnostic Methods
| Diagnostic Method | Advantages | Disadvantages/Problems |
|---|---|---|
| Virus isolation | Produces further material for study of agent | Slow, time-consuming, can be difficult and expensive |
| Usually highly sensitive | Selection of cell type, etc., may be critical | |
| “Open-minded” | Useless for non-viable virus or for non-cultivable agents | |
| Direct observation by electron microscopy | Rapid | Relatively insensitive |
| Detects viruses that cannot be grown in culture | Cumbersome for large numbers of samples | |
| Detects non-viable virus | Limited to a few infections | |
| “Open-minded” | ||
| Serological identification of virus or antigen, for example, EIA | Rapid and sensitive | Not applicable to all viruses |
| Provides information on serotypes | Interpretation may be difficult | |
| Readily available, often as diagnostic kits | Not as sensitive as PCR | |
| Targeted to a specific agent | ||
| Detection of viral genomes by PCR | Rapid, very sensitive | High sensitivity may lead to detection of non-relevant co-infections |
| Potentially applicable to all viruses incl. non-cultivable | Risk of DNA contamination | |
| Reagents (primers) for additional viruses easily made | Needs good quality control | |
| Good quantitation of load | Targeted to a specific agent | |
| Can be multiplexed | ||
| Antibody seroconversion (acute and convalescent sera) | Useful if appropriate samples for direct detection cannot be obtained, or to exclude a particular infection retrospectively | Slow, late (retrospective) |
| Interpretation may be difficult | ||
| Targeted to a specific agent | ||
| IgM serology | Rapid | False positives may occur |
| Targeted to a specific agent |