Pr Vs Pcr Method

Results:
The conventional methods used to identify MRSA require culturing which can take days to obtain. For hospitals needing quick results the PCR method is ideal because results can be obtained within just a few hours (often as low as within five hours). Getting these results in such a timely manner can help to start treatment earlier, reducing the amount of time needed for isolation and hospitalization, and thus reducing costs. It has also been shown that the PCR method is not only quick but it provides the most reliable results. In a study comparing conventional methods with PCR it was shown that the PCR method is preferred with respect to sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. This study showed numerous issues with these conventional
This is seen when they compare PCR results with the conventional methods used. Out of 165 isolates 62 were found to be mecA PCR-positive, the ODD method only found 58 and the mannitol sugar agar (MSA) with oxacillin found only 54. Another issue is the factor stated before that in a culture you may have microbes that are heterogenous to resistance, meaning they have the potential for resistance but do not express it until they are in a living host. This factor can lead to what they found to be false-positives. There were 103 mecA PCR-negative isolates found and out of those ODD found 86 negative and the rest were diagnosed with MRSA. In the same respect MSA with oxacillin found 92 and the remaining 11 were diagnosed. The sensitivity of the study was one that was of utmost importance. For example, with the ODD test they found it to have a sensitivity of 93.5 percent (even lower with MSA). This percentage means that out of 100 patients tested for MRSA only 93.5 will be diagnosed correctly leaving the rest to be misdiagnosed. While this may not seem like a great difference, it certainly is. Of the 100 patients tested there are about seven left who will be misdiagnosed, will not be treated correctly, and ultimately not
The PCR method of identification is one such example. Because of the reliability of this method, there are now many hospitals and healthcare facilities that have incorporated risk factor screening programs for MRSA prior to hospitalization. However, the cost of PCR is high and there are now studies being performed to identify if these costs outweigh the benefits gained. So far, the benefits for risk factor-based screening programs seem to outweigh the costs. Studies in Malaysia and the Netherlands have shown proof that the rapid detection of MRSA via the PCR method, and the reliability of it saves a vast amount of time which leads to cost reduction in relation to treatment, resources, and isolation procedures. Though the cost of PCR is high, these studies claim that the benefits of the method may be greater than the expense. While these are recent studies, there are only a handful of them and more are certainly needed to further conclude that PCR benefits outweigh its