Lab Monograph
Herpes simplex virus DNA assay
References
General references used
- Tremblay C, Coutlee F, Weiss J, et al: Evaluation of a non-isotopic polymerase chain reaction assay for detection in clinical specimens of herpes simplex virus type 2 DNA. Clin Diagn Virol 1997; 8:53-62.
- Malm G, Forsgren M: Neonatal herpes simplex virus infections: HSV DNA in cerebrospinal fluid and serum. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 1999; 81(1):F24-F29.
- Diamond C, Mohan K, Hobson A, et al: Viremia in neonatal herpes simplex virus infections.. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999; 18:487-489.
- Tunkel AR , Glaser CA , Bloch KC , et al: The management of encephalitis: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 47(3):303-327.
- Tyler KL: Herpes simplex virus infections of the central nervous system: encephalitis and meningitis, including Mollaret's. Herpes 2004; 11(Suppl 2):57A-64A.
- Raschilas F, Wolff M, Delatour F, et al: Outcome of and prognostic factors for herpes simplex encephalitis in adult patients: results of a multicenter study.. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 35:254-260.
- Lakeman FD, Whitley RJ: Diagnosis of herpes simplex encephalitis: application of polymerase chain reaction to cerebrospinal fluid from brain-biopsied patients and correlation with disease.. J Infect Dis 1995; 171:857-863.
- Steiner I, Budka H, Chaudhuri A, et al: Viral encephalitis: a review of diagnostic methods and guidelines for management. Eur J Neurol 2005; 12(5):331-343.
- Dupuis O, Audibert F, Fernandez H, et al: Herpes simplex virus encephalitis in pregnancy.. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94:810-812.
- Bergstrom T, Olofsson S, Studahl M, et al: Gene amplification in viral CNS infections: rapid diagnostic identification of herpes viruses.. Lakartidnigen 1995; 92:427-432.
- Weil AA, Glaser CA, Amad Z, et al: Patients with suspected herpes simplex encephalitis: rethinking an initial negative polymerase chain reaction result.. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34:1154-1157.
- Lipkin WI: European consensus on viral encephalitis (commentary).. Lancet 1997; 349:299-300.
- Simko JP, Caliendo AM, Hogle K, et al: Differences in laboratory findings for cerebrospinal fluid specimens obtained from patients with meningitis or encephalitis due to herpes simplex virus (HSV) documented by detection of HSV DNA. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 35(4):414-419.
- Calvario A, Bozzi A, Scarasciulli M, et al: Herpes Consensus PCR test: a useful diagnostic approach to the screening of viral diseases of the central nervous system.. J Clin Virol 2002; 25 Suppl:71-78.
- Debiasi RL, Kleinschmidt-DeMasters BK, Weinberg A, et al: Use of PCR for the diagnosis of herpesvirus infections of the central nervous system. J Clin Virol 2002; 25(Suppl 1):S5-11.
- Espy MJ, Rys PN, Wold AD, et al: Detection of herpes simplex virus DNA in genital and dermal specimens by LightCycler PCR after extraction using the IsoQuick, MagNA Pure, and BioRobot 9604 methods. J Clin Microbiol 2001; 39(6):2233-2236.
- Tietz NW (Ed): Clinical Guide to Laboratory Tests, 3rd ed. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA, 1995.
- Henry JB: Clinical Diagnosis and Management by Laboratory Methods, 20th ed. Saunders, 2001.
Attributions
- Copyright © Copyright Merative 2025 Information is for End User's use only and may not be sold, redistributed or otherwise used for commercial purposes.
- The information contained in the Merative products is intended as an educational aid only. All Treatments or procedures are intended to serve as an information resource for physicians or other competent healthcare professionals performing the consultation or evaluation of patients and must be interpreted in view of all attendant circumstances, indications and contraindications. The use of the Merative products is at your sole risk. These products are provided "as is" and "as available" for use, without warranties of any kind, either express or implied. Merative makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, reliability, timeliness, usefulness or completeness of any of the information contained in the products. Additionally, Merative makes no representation or warranties as to the opinions or other service or data you may access, download or use as a result of use of the Merative products. All implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose or use are hereby excluded. Merative does not assume any responsibility or risk for your use of the Merative products.
- This product includes all or a portion of the LOINC® database, or is derived from the LOINC® database, subject to a license from Regenstrief Institute, Inc. Your use of the LOINC database and LOINC codes also is subject to this license, a copy of which is available at http://www.loinc.org/license. The current complete LOINC database and Users' Guide are available for download at http://www.regenstrief.org/loinc. The LOINC database and LOINC codes are copyright © 1995-2025, Regenstrief Institute, Inc. and the Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) Committee. All rights reserved. THE LOINC DATABASE IS PROVIDED "AS IS." ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES ARE DISCLAIMED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. LOINC® is a registered trademark of Regenstrief Institute, Inc.
Last Modified
- September 25, 2023
Definitions
- Strength of Recommendation
- Class I - Recommended
- The given test or treatment has been proven to be useful, and should be performed or administered.
- Class IIa - Recommended, In Most Cases
- The given test, or treatment is generally considered to be useful, and is indicated in most cases.
- Class IIb - Recommended, In Some Cases
- The given test, or treatment may be useful, and is indicated in some, but not most, cases.
- Class III - Not Recommended
- The given test, or treatment is not useful, and should be avoided.
- Class Indeterminate - Evidence Inconclusive
- Class I - Recommended
- Strength of Evidence
- Category A
- Category A evidence is based on data derived from: Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with homogeneity with regard to the directions and degrees of results between individual studies. Multiple, well-done randomized clinical trials involving large numbers of patients.
- Category B
- Category B evidence is based on data derived from: Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with conflicting conclusions with regard to the directions and degrees of results between individual studies. Randomized controlled trials that involved small numbers of patients or had significant methodological flaws (e.g., bias, drop-out rate, flawed analysis, etc.). Nonrandomized studies (e.g., cohort studies, case-control studies, observational studies).
- Category C
- Category C evidence is based on data derived from: Expert opinion or consensus, case reports or case series.
- No Evidence
- Category A
How to cite
National Library of Medicine, or "Vancouver style" (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors):
- DynaMed [Internet]. Ipswich (MA): EBSCO Information Services. 1995 - . Record No. , ; [updated , cited place cited date here]. Available from https://www.dynamed.com/topics/dmp~AN~. Registration and login required.
Published by EBSCO Information Services. Copyright © 2025, EBSCO Information Services. All rights reserved. No part of this may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission.
EBSCO Information Services accepts no liability for advice or information given herein or errors/omissions in the text. It is merely intended as a general informational overview of the subject for the healthcare professional.
DynaMed Levels of Evidence
Quickly find and determine the quality of the evidence.
DynaMed provides easy-to-interpret Level of Evidence labels so users can quickly find and determine the quality of the best available evidence. Evidence may be labeled in one of three levels:
1Level 1 (likely reliable) Evidence
2Level 2 (mid-level) Evidence
3Level 3 (lacking direct) Evidence
Grades of Recommendation
Guideline producers are now frequently using classification approaches for their evidence and recommendations, and these classifications are recognized and requested by guideline users. When summarizing guideline recommendations for DynaMed users, the DynaMed Editors are using the guideline-specific classifications and providing guideline classification approach when this is done.
Download the full version of Levels of Evidence