Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15634947›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2005

External quality assessment for molecular detection of Bordetella pertussis in European laboratories.

G Muyldermans, O Soetens, M Antoine, S Bruisten, B Vincart, F Doucet-Populaire, N K Fry, P Olcén, J M Scheftel, J M Senterre and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The 2024 resurgence ofFrontiers in public health · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Comparing the Yield of Nasopharyngeal Swabs, Nasal Aspirates, and Induced Sputum for Detection of Bordetella pertussis in Hospitalized Infants.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2016
    Article
  5. Laboratory Diagnosis of Pertussis.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2015
    Review
  6. Status of pertussis in iran.Jundishapur journal of microbiology · 2014
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 9 institutions in 5 countries.

G MuyldermansDepartment of Microbiology, Academisch Ziekenhuis Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Brussels, Belgium. labomicro@az.vub.ac.be
O Soetens
M Antoine
S Bruisten
B Vincart
F Doucet-Populaire
N K Fry
P Olcén
J M Scheftel
J M Senterre
A van der Zee
M Riffelmann
D Piérard
S Lauwers
Vrije Universiteit Brussel · BECentre Hospitalier de Versailles · FRCentre hospitalier régional de la Citadelle · BEElisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis · NLGGD Amsterdam · NLHelios Klinikum Krefeld · DEInstitut de Chimie de Strasbourg · FRInstitute of Pathology and Genetics · BEÖrebro University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the PCR for the detection of Bordetella pertussis is routinely performed in diagnostic laboratories, no quality assessment program has so far been described. We report on the results obtained with two external quality assessment proficiency panels sent to European laboratories. The first proficiency panel contained a series of dilutions of three previously characterized B. pertussis clinical isolates and two negative controls. No false-positive results were reported by six laboratories providing seven data sets. The reported limits of detection of the three B. pertussis strains varied between 4 and 4,000, 9 and 9,000, and 3 and 30,000 CFU/ml, respectively. The second proficiency panel, composed of a series of dilutions of reference strains of B. pertussis, B. holmesii, B. hinzii, and B. bronchiseptica, as well as negative controls, was sent to nine laboratories. One laboratory reported a negative result for a sample and reported a B. parapertussis-positive sample to be positive for B. pertussis. By using the B. pertussis-specific target gene pertactin, one laboratory detected B. pertussis with 100% specificity. All other laboratories, which used IS481-based assays, reported positive results for the samples containing B. holmesii and B. bronchiseptica, species that have occasionally been recovered from human respiratory samples. These data show that the choice of the target gene is particularly critical for the species specificity of B. pertussis PCR assays.

Indexed as

Bordetella pertussisDNA, BacterialEuropeFalse Positive ReactionsHumansLaboratoriesPolymerase Chain ReactionQuality ControlReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityWhooping CoughDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID15634947
PMCPMC540137
OpenAlexW2119016258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.