Abstract
Molecular techniques have represented a major step forward in the diagnosis of viral respiratory infections. They are considered highly sensitive and specific compared to conventional techniques. In this study two nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) were compared to conventional methods (immunofluorescence and viral culture). The aim of this work was to discuss the clinical interpretation of the results obtained by NAATs on the basis of the two-decade experience of our group and the literature. Eighty nasopharyngeal aspirates were collected from children under six years attended for acute respiratory illness at the pediatric emergency room of a third level Hospital. Both NAATs tested (Seeplex(®) and Clart(®)) showed an overall higher performance regarding sensitivity (76% and 90%, respectively). Compared to Seeplex(®), the Clart(®) system tripled the number of multiple detections (8 by Seeplex(®) vs. 25 by Clart(®)). In some specimens both NAATs detected different viruses. Given these discrepancies and the fact that detection of viral nucleic acids is not necessarily related to the current clinical syndrome, the interpretation of molecular results may not always be so straightforward. The pros and cons of NAATs should always be taken into account when giving a result.