Table 4.
Comparison of frequently used commercially available diagnostic approaches for hantavirus disease
| Diagnostic test | Antigen type/hantavirus detected | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Comments | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ELISA | DOBVHTNVPUUVSEOVANDVSNV | 95–97 | 94–99 | Combination of IgG test and IgM capture test is recommended | [224, 225] |
| IFA | DOBVHTNVPUUV | 98 | 91 | Used as a confirmation test in Europe | [227] |
| Immunoblot assay | DOBVHTNVPUUVSEOV | 96 | 100 | Used as a confirmation test in Europe | [226] |
| Rapid immunochromatographic IgM antibody tests | DOBVHTNVPUUVSNV | 80–93 | 96 | Point-of-care test | [228, 229] |
| (Real-time)-PCR | Facilitates sequencing of the viral genome and the detection of novel hantaviruses | 92–98 | 80–98 | Time to test positivity <24 h Only useful in early viremic stage of infection | [265, 266] |