ArticleJournal of immunological methods2016
Variability of the IFN-γ ELISpot assay in the context of proficiency testing and bridging studies.
Article in Journal of immunological methods, 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.
- Decreased variability in the site-specific results during participation in the External Quality Assurance Program Oversight Laboratory (EQAPOL) proficiency program for IFN-gamma enzyme-linked immunospot (IFN-γ ELISpot) assay.Journal of immunological methods · 2024Article
- Validation of the performance and suitability of a new class of FBS optimized for use in single-cell functional assays.Journal of immunological methods · 2023Review
- Comparison of Rapid Cytokine Immunoassays for Functional Immune Phenotyping.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Assays that assess cellular mediated immune responses performed under Good Clinical Laboratory Practice (GCLP) guidelines are required to provide specific and reproducible results. Defined validation procedures are required to establish the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), include pass and fail criteria, as well as implement positivity criteria. However, little to no guidance is provided on how to perform longitudinal assessment of the key reagents utilized in the assay. Through the External Quality Assurance Program Oversight Laboratory (EQAPOL), an Interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) Enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (ELISpot) assay proficiency testing program is administered. A limit of acceptable within site variability was estimated after six rounds of proficiency testing (PT). Previously, a PT send-out specific within site variability limit was calculated based on the dispersion (variance/mean) of the nine replicate wells of data. Now an overall 'dispersion limit' for the ELISpot PT program within site variability has been calculated as a dispersion of 3.3. The utility of this metric was assessed using a control sample to calculate the within (precision) and between (accuracy) experiment variability to determine if the dispersion limit could be applied to bridging studies (studies that assess lot-to-lot variations of key reagents) for comparing the accuracy of results with new lots to results with old lots. Finally, simulations were conducted to explore how this dispersion limit could provide guidance in the number of replicate wells needed for within and between experiment variability and the appropriate donor reactivity (number of antigen-specific cells) to be used for the evaluation of new reagents. Our bridging study simulations indicate using a minimum of six replicate wells of a control donor sample with reactivity of at least 150 spot forming cells per well is optimal. To determine significant lot-to-lot variations use the 3.3 dispersion limit for between and within experiment variability.
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.