ArticleBiosafety and health2022
Evaluation of factors contributing to variability of qualitative and quantitative proficiency testing for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection.
Article in Biosafety and health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to unprecedented social and economic disruption. Many nucleic acid testing (NAT) laboratories in China have been established to control the epidemic better. This proficiency testing (PT) aims to evaluate the participants' performance in qualitative and quantitative SARS-CoV-2 NAT and to explore the factors that contribute to differences in detection capabilities. Two different concentrations of RNA samples (A, B) were used for quantitative PT. Pseudovirus samples D, E (different concentrations) and negative sample (F) were used for qualitative PT. 50 data sets were reported for qualitative PT, of which 74.00% were entirely correct for all samples. Forty-two laboratories participated in the quantitative PT. 37 submitted all gene results, of which only 56.76% were satisfactory. For qualitative detection, it is suggested that laboratories should strengthen personnel training, select qualified detection kits, and reduce cross-contamination to improve detection accuracy. For quantitative detection, the results of the reverse transcription digital PCR (RT-dPCR) method were more comparable and reliable than those of reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). The copy number concentration of ORF1ab and N in samples A and B scattered in 85, 223, 50, and 106 folds, respectively. The differences in the quantitative result of RT-qPCR was mainly caused by the non-standard use of reference materials and the lack of personnel operating skills. Comparing the satisfaction of participants participating in both quantitative and qualitative proficiency testing, 95.65% of the laboratories with satisfactory quantitative results also judged the qualitative results correctly, while 85.71% of the laboratories with unsatisfactory quantitative results were also unsatisfied with their qualitative judgments. Therefore, the quantitative ability is the basis of qualitative judgment. Overall, participants from hospitals reported more satisfactory results than those from enterprises and universities. Therefore, surveillance, daily qualitiy control and standardized operating procedures should be strengthened to improve the capability of SARS-CoV-2 NAT.
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.