ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2015
Comparative evaluation of three commercial quantitative cytomegalovirus standards by use of digital and real-time PCR.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Microbiologics CMV verification panel for the quantitation of CMV DNA.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Analytical and Clinical Performance of the NeuMoDx™ Platform for Cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr Virus Viral Load Testing.Viruses · 2024Article
- Accuracy of quantitative viral secondary standards: a re-examination.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Persistent Challenges of Interassay Variability in Transplant Viral Load Testing.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Review
- Impact of Fragmentation on Commutability of Epstein-Barr Virus and Cytomegalovirus Quantitative Standards.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
- Detection of Human Microchimerism following Allogeneic Cell Transplantation Using Droplet Digital PCR.Stem cells international · 2019Article
- Applications of Digital PCR for Clinical Microbiology.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Review
- Inter-laboratory assessment of different digital PCR platforms for quantification of human cytomegalovirus DNA.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2017Article
- Calibration of BK Virus Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing to the 1st WHO International Standard for BK Virus.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- Progress in Quantitative Viral Load Testing: Variability and Impact of the WHO Quantitative International Standards.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- Synthetic certified DNA reference material for analysis of human erythropoietin transgene and transcript in gene doping and gene therapy.Gene therapy · 2016Article
- The Future of Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction in Virology.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2016Review
- Influence of primer & probe chemistry and amplification target on reverse transcription digital PCR quantification of viral RNA.Biomolecular detection and quantification · 2016Article
- Quantitative Assessment of Commutability for Clinical Viral Load Testing Using a Digital PCR-Based Reference Standard.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
- Preemptive antiviral therapy for CMV infection in allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients guided by the viral doubling time in the blood.Bone marrow transplantation · 2016Article
- Quantification of Hepatitis E Virus in Naturally-Contaminated Pig Liver Products.Frontiers in microbiology · 2016Article
- Commutability of the First World Health Organization International Standard for Human Cytomegalovirus.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The recent development of the 1st WHO International Standard for human cytomegalovirus (CMV) and the introduction of commercially produced secondary standards have raised hopes of improved agreement among laboratories performing quantitative PCR for CMV. However, data to evaluate the trueness and uniformity of secondary standards and the consistency of results achieved when these materials are run on various assays are lacking. Three concentrations of each of the three commercially prepared secondary CMV standards were tested in quadruplicate by three real-time and two digital PCR methods. The mean results were compared in a pairwise fashion with nominal values provided by each manufacturer. The agreement of results among all methods for each sample and for like concentrations of each standard was also assessed. The relationship between the nominal values of standards and the measured values varied, depending upon the assay used and the manufacturer of the standards, with the degree of bias ranging from +0.6 to -1.0 log10 IU/ml. The mean digital PCR result differed significantly among the secondary standards, as did the results of the real-time PCRs, particularly when plotted against nominal log10 IU values. Commercially available quantitative secondary CMV standards produce variable results when tested by different real-time and digital PCR assays, with various magnitudes of bias compared to nominal values. These findings suggest that the use of such materials may not achieve the intended uniformity among laboratories measuring CMV viral load, as envisioned by adaptation of the WHO standard.
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.