ArticleClinical transplantation2014
Multicenter comparison of laboratory performance in cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus viral load testing using international standards.
Article in Clinical transplantation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of the cobas EBV and cobas BKV assays: multi-site comparison of standardized quantitation.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Post-Transplant Lymphoproliferative Disorders.Seminars in nephrology · 2024Review
- Pre-Emptive Use of Rituximab in Epstein-Barr Virus Reactivation: Incidence, Predictive Factors, Monitoring, and Outcomes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Evaluation of a Quantitative Dual-Target EBV DNA Test on a Fully Automated Molecular Testing System.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2023Article
- Prevention of OncogenicTransplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2023Review
- Post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.Annals of hematology · 2021Review
- Absence of evidence that respiratory viral infections influence pediatric lung transplantation outcomes: Results of the CTOTC-03 study.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2019Observational
- Accuracy of diagnostic tests and a new algorithm for diagnosing cytomegalovirus colitis in inflammatory bowel diseases: a diagnostic study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Article
- Current State of PCR-Based Epstein-Barr Virus DNA Testing for Nasopharyngeal Cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2017Article
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInfections with cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) remain important in solid organ transplantation. Quantitative viral nucleic acid testing is a major advance to patient management. These assays are limited by a lack of standardization, resulting in viral load measurements that differ among clinical laboratories. The variability in viral load measurements makes interpretation of multicenter clinical trials data difficult. This study compares the current practices in CMV and EBV viral load testing at four large transplant centers participating in multicenter Clinical Trials in Organ Transplantation and the Clinical Trials in Organ Transplantation in Children (CTOT and CTOTC).
methodsViral load testing was performed on well-defined viral preparations according to standard operating procedures at each site.
resultsAmong centers, CMV viral load testing was accurate compared to WHO International Standards and within acceptable variation for this testing method. Epstein-Barr virus viral load data were more variable and less accurate despite the use of international standards.
conclusionsThese data suggest that comparison of CMV, but not EBV, viral load measurements at these sites is possible using current assays and control standards. Standardization of these assays is facilitated using the WHO International Standards and will allow comparison of viral load results among transplant centers. Assay standardization must be performed prior to initiation of multicenter trials.
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.