Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35983593›Full record

ArticleJournal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc2022

Second round of an interlaboratory comparison of SARS-CoV2 molecular detection assays used by 45 veterinary diagnostic laboratories in the United States.

Kaiping Deng, Steffen Uhlig, Laura B Goodman, Hon S Ip, Mary Lea Killian, Sarah M Nemser, Jodie Ulaszek, Shannon Kiener, Matthew Kmet, Kirstin Frost and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Comparative evaluation of assay performance for SARS-CoV-2 detection in animal oral samples, lung homogenates, and phosphate-buffered saline using the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo kit.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2024
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Kaiping Deng
Steffen Uhlig
Hon S Ip
Mary Lea Killian
Sarah M Nemser
Jodie Ulaszek
Shannon Kiener
Matthew Kmet
Kirstin Frost
Karina Hettwer
Bertrand Colson
Kapil Nichani
Andriy Tkachenko
Mothomang Mlalazi-Oyinloye
Andrew Scott
Ravinder Reddy
Gregory H TysonDivision of Food Processing Science and Technology, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Bedford Park, IL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0048-9243
Center for Veterinary Medicine · USUnited States Food and Drug Administration · USAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service · USCornell University · USIllinois Institute of Technology · USUnited States Geological Survey · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic presents a continued public health challenge. Veterinary diagnostic laboratories in the United States use RT-rtPCR for animal testing, and many laboratories are certified for testing human samples; hence, ensuring that laboratories have sensitive and specific SARS-CoV2 testing methods is a critical component of the pandemic response. In 2020, the FDA Veterinary Laboratory Investigation and Response Network (Vet-LIRN) led an interlaboratory comparison (ILC1) to help laboratories evaluate their existing RT-rtPCR methods for detecting SARS-CoV2. All participating laboratories were able to detect the viral RNA spiked in buffer and PrimeStore molecular transport medium (MTM). With ILC2, Vet-LIRN extended ILC1 by evaluating analytical sensitivity and specificity of the methods used by participating laboratories to detect 3 SARS-CoV2 variants (B.1; B.1.1.7 [Alpha]; B.1.351 [Beta]) at various copy levels. We analyzed 57 sets of results from 45 laboratories qualitatively and quantitatively according to the principles of ISO 16140-2:2016. More than 95% of analysts detected the SARS-CoV2 RNA in MTM at ≥500 copies for all 3 variants. In addition, for nucleocapsid markers N1 and N2, 81% and 92% of the analysts detected ≤20 copies in the assays, respectively. The analytical specificity of the evaluated methods was >99%. Participating laboratories were able to assess their current method performance, identify possible limitations, and recognize method strengths as part of a continuous learning environment to support the critical need for the reliable diagnosis of COVID-19 in potentially infected animals and humans.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2AnimalsCOVID-19 TestingHumansImmunity, InnateLaboratoriesLymphocytesPandemicsRNA, ViralSensitivity and SpecificityUnited StatesRNA, ViralCOVID-19interlaboratory comparisonreal-time RT-PCRSARS-CoV2

Identifiers

PMID35983593
PMCPMC9446291
OpenAlexW4292493777

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.