ArticleWater research2019
Standardized data quality acceptance criteria for a rapid Escherichia coli qPCR method (Draft Method C) for water quality monitoring at recreational beaches.
Article in Water research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Have genetic targets for faecal pollution diagnostics and source tracking revolutionized water quality analysis yet?FEMS microbiology reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Assessing Passive Sampling for the Monitoring ofACS ES&T water · 2025Article
- Comprehensive evaluation of UV inactivation ofWater research X · 2025Article
- Public health use and lessons learned from a statewide SARS-CoV-2 wastewater monitoring program (MiNET).Heliyon · 2024Article
- Molecular testing devices for on-site detection of E. coli in water samples.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Geospatial Patterns of Antimicrobial Resistance Genes in the US EPA National Rivers and Streams Assessment Survey.Environmental science & technology · 2022Article
- Interlaboratory performance and quantitative PCR data acceptance metrics for NIST SRM® 2917.Water research · 2022Article
- Bacterial and viral fecal indicator predictive modeling at three Great Lakes recreational beach sites.Water research · 2022Article
- Performance of NIST SRM® 2917 with 13 recreational water quality monitoring qPCR assays.Water research · 2022Article
- Strategy to Evaluate Changes in Bacterial Community Profiles and Bacterial Pathogen Load Reduction After Sewage Disinfection.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Reduction and discharge of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Chicago-area water reclamation plants.FEMS microbes · 2022Article
- Large-scale comparison of E. coli levels determined by culture and a qPCR method (EPA Draft Method C) in Michigan towards the implementation of rapid, multi-site beach testing.Journal of microbiological methods · 2021Article
- A short history of methods used to measure bathing beach water quality.Journal of microbiological methods · 2021Review
- Markers Specific toInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Microbial Indicators of Fecal Pollution: Recent Progress and Challenges in Assessing Water Quality.Current environmental health reports · 2020Review
- Article
- Microbiological safety of popular recreation swimming sites in Central California.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2019Article
- Evaluation of multiple laboratory performance and variability in analysis of recreational freshwaters by a rapid Escherichia coli qPCR method (Draft Method C).Water research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
There is growing interest in the application of rapid quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and other PCR-based methods for recreational water quality monitoring and management programs. This interest has strengthened given the publication of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-validated qPCR methods for enterococci fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) and has extended to similar methods for Escherichia coli (E. coli) FIB. Implementation of qPCR-based methods in monitoring programs can be facilitated by confidence in the quality of the data produced by these methods. Data quality can be determined through the establishment of a series of specifications that should reflect good laboratory practice. Ideally, these specifications will also account for the typical variability of data coming from multiple users of the method. This study developed proposed standardized data quality acceptance criteria that were established for important calibration model parameters and/or controls from a new qPCR method for E. coli (EPA Draft Method C) based upon data that was generated by 21 laboratories. Each laboratory followed a standardized protocol utilizing the same prescribed reagents and reference and control materials. After removal of outliers, statistical modeling based on a hierarchical Bayesian method was used to establish metrics for assay standard curve slope, intercept and lower limit of quantification that included between-laboratory, replicate testing within laboratory, and random error variability. A nested analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to establish metrics for calibrator/positive control, negative control, and replicate sample analysis data. These data acceptance criteria should help those who may evaluate the technical quality of future findings from the method, as well as those who might use the method in the future. Furthermore, these benchmarks and the approaches described for determining them may be helpful to method users seeking to establish comparable laboratory-specific criteria if changes in the reference and/or control materials must be made.
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.