Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22170925›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2012

Performance of different mono- and multiplex nucleic acid amplification tests on a multipathogen external quality assessment panel.

K Loens, A M van Loon, F Coenjaerts, Y van Aarle, H Goossens, P Wallace, E J C Claas, M Ieven, GRACE Study Group

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

51 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The impact of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccination on virus-associated community-acquired pneumonia in elderly: Exploratory analysis of the CAPiTA trial.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2018
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Benchmark of thirteen bioinformatic pipelines for metagenomic virus diagnostics using datasets from clinical samples.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2021
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Lower respiratory tract infection in the community: associations between viral aetiology and illness course.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

9 authors.

K LoensDepartment of Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Diseases Institute, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. Katherine.loens@ua.ac.be
A M van Loon
F Coenjaerts
Y van Aarle
H Goossens
P Wallace
E J C Claas
M Ieven
GRACE Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An external quality assessment (EQA) panel consisting of a total of 48 samples in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid or transport medium was prepared in collaboration with Quality Control for Molecular Diagnostics (QCMD) (www.qcmd.org). The panel was used to assess the proficiency of the three laboratories that would be responsible for examining the 6,000 samples to be collected in the GRACE Network of Excellence (www.grace-lrti.org). The main objective was to decide on the best-performing testing approach for the detection of influenza viruses A and B, parainfluenza virus types 1 to 3, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus, coronavirus, rhinovirus, adenovirus, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Legionella pneumophila by nucleic acid amplification techniques (NAATs). Two approaches were chosen: (i) laboratories testing samples using their in-house procedures for extraction and amplification and (ii) laboratories using their in-house amplification procedures on centrally extracted samples. Furthermore, three commercially available multiplex NAAT tests-the ResPlex (Qiagen GmbH, Hilden, Germany), RespiFinder plus (PathoFinder, Maastricht, The Netherlands), and RespiFinder Smart 21 (PathoFinder) tests-were evaluated by examination of the same EQA panel by the manufacturer. No large differences among the 3 laboratories were noticed when the performances of the assays developed in-house in combination with the in-house extraction procedures were compared. Also, the extraction procedure (central versus local) had little effect on performance. However, large differences in amplification efficacy were found between the commercially available tests; acceptable results were obtained by using the PathoFinder assays.

Indexed as

Reference StandardsBacteriaBacterial InfectionsGermanyHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNetherlandsNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesQuality Assurance, Health CareRespiratory Tract InfectionsVirus DiseasesViruses

Identifiers

PMID22170925
PMCPMC3295136

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.