ArticlePloS one2015
External Quality Assessment of Molecular Detection of Ebola Virus in China.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel assay based on DNA melting temperature for multiplexed identification of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B viruses.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- One-plasmid double-expression system for preparation of MS2 virus-like particles packaging SARS-CoV-2 RNA.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
- External Quality Assessment for Molecular Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Clinical Laboratories.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2021Article
- Development and evaluation of armored RNA-based standards for quantification of BCR-ABL1Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2018Article
- Armored long non-coding RNA MEG3 targeting EGFR based on recombinant MS2 bacteriophage virus-like particles against hepatocellular carcinoma.Oncotarget · 2016Article
- A novel delivery platform based on Bacteriophage MS2 virus-like particles.Virus research · 2016Review
- Correction: External Quality Assessment of Molecular Detection of Ebola Virus in China.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2014, Ebola hemorrhagic fever broke out in West Africa. As contact between China and West Africa is frequent, the possibility that Ebola virus would enter China was high. Thus, an external assessment of the quality of Ebola virus detection was organized by the National Center for Clinical Laboratories in China. Virus-like particles encapsulating known sequences of epidemic strains of Ebola virus from 2014 were prepared as positive quality controls. The sample panel, which was composed of seven positive and three negative samples, was dispatched to 19 laboratories participating in this assessment of Ebola virus detection. Accurate detection was reported at 14 of the 19 participating laboratories, with a sensitivity of 91.43% and a specificity of 100%. Four participants (21.05%) reported false-negative results and were classified as "acceptable." One participant (5.26%) did not detect any positive samples and was thus classified as "improvable." Based on the results returned, the ability to detect weakly positive Ebola specimens should be improved. Furthermore, commercial assays and the standard primers offered by the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were found to be most accurate and dependable for Ebola detection. A two-target detection approach is recommended for Ebola screening; this approach could reduce the probability of false-negative results. Additionally, standardization of operations and punctual adjustment of instruments are necessary for the control and prevention of Ebola virus.
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.