ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2022
Matrix Matters: Assessment of Commutability among BK Virus Assays and Standards.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of FDA-cleared molecular solutions for BK polyomavirus quantitation.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Quantitative testing of BK virus (BKPyV) nucleic acid has become the standard of care in transplant patients. While the relationship between interassay harmonization and commutability has been well characterized for other transplant-related viruses, it has been less well studied for BKPyV, particularly regarding differences in commutability between matrices. Here, interassay agreement was evaluated among six real-time nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) and one digital PCR (dPCR) BKPyV assay. Differences in the commutability of three quantitative standards was examined across all assays using a variety of statistical approaches. Panels, including 40 samples each of plasma and urine samples previously positive for BKPyV, together with one previously negative plasma sample and four previously negative urine samples, were tested using all assays, with each real-time NAAT utilizing its usual quantitative calibrators. Serial dilutions of WHO, National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), and commercially produced (Exact/Bio-Rad) reference materials were also run by each assay as unknowns. The agreement of the clinical sample values was assessed as a group and in a pairwise manner. The commutability was estimated using both relativistic and quantitative means. The quantitative agreement across assays in the urine samples was within a single log
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.