ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2008
Multicenter comparison of different real-time PCR assays for quantitative detection of Epstein-Barr virus.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
50 citing papers in PubMed, 142 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analytical and clinical evaluation of the cobas Epstein-Barr virus test at a tertiary care cancer hospital.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2024Article
- Accuracy of quantitative viral secondary standards: a re-examination.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Assessing the comparability of cycle threshold values derived from five external quality assessment rounds for omicron nucleic acid testing.Virology journal · 2023Article
- Matrix Matters: Assessment of Commutability among BK Virus Assays and Standards.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2022Article
- Post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.Annals of hematology · 2021Review
- Quantitative PCR of Small Nucleic Acids: Size Matters.ChemistrySelect · 2021Article
- HERQ-9 Is a New Multiplex PCR for Differentiation and Quantification of All Nine Human Herpesviruses.mSphere · 2020Article
- Post Transplant Lymphoproliferative Disorder.Indian journal of hematology & blood transfusion : an official journal of Indian Society of Hematology and Blood Transfusion · 2020Review
- Automated quantification of Epstein-Barr virus in whole blood for post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders monitoring.Virology journal · 2020Article
- Management of Epstein-Barr virus-related post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.Therapeutic advances in hematology · 2020Review
- Impact of Fragmentation on Commutability of Epstein-Barr Virus and Cytomegalovirus Quantitative Standards.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
- Integrated microfluidic systems with sample preparation and nucleic acid amplification.Lab on a chip · 2019Review
- A Comprehensive Statistical Framework for Determination of Commutability, Accuracy, and Agreement in Clinical DNAemia Assays.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
- dPCR: A Technology Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
- Epstein-Barr Virus Epidemiology, Serology, and Genetic Variability of LMP-1 Oncogene Among Healthy Population: An Update.Frontiers in oncology · 2018Review
- Current State of PCR-Based Epstein-Barr Virus DNA Testing for Nasopharyngeal Cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2017Article
- Progress in Quantitative Viral Load Testing: Variability and Impact of the WHO Quantitative International Standards.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- Comparative Performance of Reagents and Platforms for Quantitation of Cytomegalovirus DNA by Digital PCR.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
- Multicenter Evaluation of Whole-Blood Epstein-Barr Viral Load Standardization Using the WHO International Standard.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantification of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) in peripheral blood is important for the diagnosis and management of serious EBV diseases, including posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder. A variety of PCR-based methods are currently in use; however, there is little information on their comparability. This study assessed the relative performance of different quantitative assays. A multicenter comparative study was performed at eight sites using three panels consisting of serial dilutions of quantified EBV DNA and extracts from a total of 19 whole-blood specimens. Samples were distributed and tested blindly. Instrumentation, probe chemistries, amplification targets, and other test-related aspects varied considerably between laboratories. Each laboratory's calibration curve indicated strong evidence of a consistent log-linear relationship between viral load and cycle threshold, suggesting that intralaboratory tracking of a given patient would yield similar relative quantitative trends among the participating test sites. There was strong concordance among laboratories with respect to qualitative test results; however, marked quantitative discordance was seen. For most samples, the across-laboratory interquartile range of the reported viral load (in copies/microl) was roughly 0.6 log-units, and for one sample the overall range was approximately 4.2 log-units. While intralaboratory tracking of patients may yield similar results, these data indicate a need for caution when attempting to compare clinical results obtained at different institutions and suggest the potential value to be gained by more standardized testing methodology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.