ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2016
Survey of Clinical Laboratory Practices for 2015 Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Outbreak in the Republic of Korea.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surveillance of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Testing in Clinical Laboratories in Korea.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2021Article
- Quality of Ribonucleic Acid Extraction for Real-Time Reverse Transcription-PCR (rRT-PCR) of SARS-CoV-2: Importance of Internal Control Monitoring.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2020Article
- Considering Revision the Criteria for Patients under Investigations for MERS-CoV Infections: Diarrhea or Not.Journal of Korean medical science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is crucial to understand the current status of clinical laboratory practices for the largest outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infections in the Republic of Korea to be well prepared for future emerging infectious diseases.
methodsWe conducted a survey of 49 clinical laboratories in medical institutions and referral medical laboratories. A short questionnaire to survey clinical laboratory practices relating to MERS-CoV diagnostic testing was sent by email to the directors and clinical pathologists in charge of the clinical laboratories performing MERS-CoV testing. The survey focused on testing volume, reporting of results, resources, and laboratory safety.
resultsA total of 40 clinical laboratories responded to the survey. A total of 27,009 MERS-CoV real-time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) tests were performed. Most of the specimens were sputum (73.5%). The median turnaround time (TAT) was 5.29 hr (first and third quartile, 4.11 and 7.48 hr) in 26 medical institutions. The median TAT of more than a half of the laboratories (57.7%) was less than 6 hr. Many laboratories were able to perform tests throughout the whole week. Laboratory biosafety preparedness included class II biosafety cabinets (100%); separated pre-PCR, PCR, and post-PCR rooms (88.6%); negative pressure pretreatment rooms (48.6%); and negative pressure sputum collection rooms (20.0%).
conclusionsClinical laboratories were able to quickly expand their diagnostic capacity in response to the 2015 MERS-CoV outbreak. Our results show that clinical laboratories play an important role in the maintenance and enhancement of laboratory response in preparation for future emerging 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.