ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2016
Multicenter Evaluation of Whole-Blood Epstein-Barr Viral Load Standardization Using the WHO International Standard.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of EBV DNA in clinically ill patients from 2013 to 2023 in Beijing, China.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Performance of the cobas EBV and cobas BKV assays: multi-site comparison of standardized quantitation.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Epstein-Barr Virus Monitoring after an Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant: Review of the Recent Data and Current Practices in Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
- Rituximab for posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder - therapeutic, preemptive, or prophylactic?Bone marrow transplantation · 2024Review
- Chronic Epstein-Barr viral load carriage after pediatric organ transplantation.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Review
- Herpes Virus Infection in Lung Transplantation: Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention Strategies.Viruses · 2023Review
- Review
- Prevention of OncogenicTransplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2023Review
- High Predictive Value of the Soluble ZEBRA Antigen (Epstein-Barr Virus Trans-Activator Zta) in Transplant Patients with PTLD.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Immunosuppressive Agents and Infectious Risk in Transplantation: Managing the "Net State of Immunosuppression".Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021Review
- Post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.Annals of hematology · 2021Review
- Post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorders: Current concepts and future therapeutic approaches.World journal of transplantation · 2020Review
- Automated Nucleic Acid Extraction Systems for Detecting Cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr Virus Using Real-Time PCR: A Comparison Study Between the QIAsymphony RGQ and QIAcube Systems.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2017Article
- Calibration of BK Virus Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing to the 1st WHO International Standard for BK Virus.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- Performance of the Real-Q EBV Quantification Kit for Epstein-Barr Virus DNA Quantification in Whole Blood.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2017Article
- The impact of targeting repetitive BamHI-W sequences on the sensitivity and precision of EBV DNA quantification.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The first WHO international standard for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) (WHO EBV standard) for nucleic acid amplification technology (NAT)-based assays was commercialized in January 2012 by the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control. In the study reported here, we compared whole-blood EBV DNA load (EDL) results from 12 French laboratories for seven samples (Quality Controls for Molecular Diagnostics 2013 proficiency panel) in order to determine whether expression in international units reduces interlaboratory variability in whole-blood EDLs. Each testing laboratory used a conversion factor to convert EDL results from copies per milliliter to international units per milliliter. This conversion factor was calculated from the WHO EBV standard according to the protocol described in this study (nine laboratories) or the recommendations of the PCR kit suppliers (three laboratories). The interlaboratory variability in whole-blood EDL results was reduced after standardization of the results using the WHO EBV standard. For the seven samples tested, standard deviations (SD) ranged from 0.41 to 0.55 when the results were expressed in log copies per milliliter, whereas the SD ranged from 0.17 to 0.32 when results were given in log international units per milliliter. Comparing the variance data (F test), we showed that the dispersion of whole-blood EDL results was significantly lower when they were expressed in log international units per milliliter (P < 0.001 for six of seven samples and P < 0.05 for one sample with a low mean EDL of 2.62 log IU/ml). This study showed that the use of the WHO EBV standard could improve the homogeneity of whole-blood EDL results between laboratories as well as the monitoring of patients at high risk of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorders or other EBV-associated diseases.
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.