ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014
Characterization and multicentric validation of a common standard for Toxoplasma gondii detection using nucleic acid amplification assays.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy for Human Toxoplasmosis: Performance, Populations, and Validation Gaps.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Multicenter performance evaluation of the "quanty TOXO (RH region)" kit (Clonit) for molecular diagnosis of toxoplasmosis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- New evaluation of the Toxoplasma ELITe MGB assay on the ELITe Ingenius™ platform (ELITechGroup).European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025Article
- Multicenter evaluation of theJournal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Impact of pre-analytic step duration on molecular diagnosis of toxoplasmosis for five types of biological samples.PloS one · 2021Article
- Inhibition of polymerase chain reaction: Pathogen-specific controls are better than human gene amplification.PloS one · 2019Article
- Evaluation of Toxoplasma ELITe MGB Real-Time PCR Assay for Diagnosis of Toxoplasmosis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The molecular diagnosis of toxoplasmosis essentially relies upon laboratory-developed methods and suffers from lack of standardization, hence the large diversity of performances between laboratories. Moreover, quantifications of parasitic loads differ among centers, a fact which prevents the possible prediction of the severity of this disease as a function of parasitic loads. The objectives of this multicentric study performed in eight proficient laboratories of the Molecular Biology Pole of the French National Reference Center for Toxoplasmosis (NRC-T) were (i) to assess the suitability of a lyophilized preparation of Toxoplasma gondii as a common standard for use in this PCR-based molecular diagnosis and (ii) to make this standard available to the community. High-quality written procedures were used for the production and qualification of this standard. Three independent batches of this standard, containing concentrations ranging from 10(4) to 0.01 T. gondii genome equivalents per PCR, were first assessed: the linear dynamic range was ≥ 6 log, the intra-assay coefficients of variation (CV) from a sample containing 10 T. gondii organisms per PCR were 0.3% to 0.42%, and the interassay CV over a 2-week period was 0.76% to 1.47%. A further assessment in eight diagnostic centers showed that the standard is stable, robust, and reliable. These lyophilized standards can easily be produced at a larger scale when needed and can be made widely available at the national level. To our knowledge, this is the first quality control assessment of a common standard which is usable both for self-evaluation in laboratories and for accurate quantification of parasitic loads in T. gondii prenatal infections.
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.