ArticleInfluenza and other respiratory viruses2023
Results from the second WHO external quality assessment for the molecular detection of respiratory syncytial virus, 2019-2020.
Article in Influenza and other respiratory viruses, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Results From the Third and Fourth WHO External Quality Assessments for the Molecular Detection of Respiratory Syncytial Virus.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2026Article
- Comment on "Results From the Third and Fourth WHO External Quality Assessments for the Molecular Detection of Respiratory Syncytial Virus".Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2026Article
- Modulation of innate immunity related genes resulting in prophylactic antimicrobial and antiviral properties.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Article
- Results from the second WHO external quality assessment for the molecular detection of respiratory syncytial virus, 2019-2020.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
75 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: External quality assessments (EQAs) for the molecular detection of human respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) are necessary to ensure the standardisation of reliable results. The Phase II, 2019-2020 World Health Organization (WHO) RSV EQA included 28 laboratories in 26 countries. The EQA panel evaluated performance in the molecular detection and subtyping of RSV-A and RSV-B. This manuscript describes the preparation, distribution, and analysis of the 2019-2020 WHO RSV EQA. Methods: Panel isolates underwent whole genome sequencing and in silico primer matching. The final panel included nine contemporary, one historical virus and two negative controls. The EQA panel was manufactured and distributed by the UK National External Quality Assessment Service (UK NEQAS). National laboratories used WHO reference assays developed by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an RSV subtyping assay developed by the Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory (Australia), or other in-house or commercial assays already in use at their laboratories. Results: An in silico analysis of isolates showed a good match to assay primer/probes. The panel was distributed to 28 laboratories. Isolates were correctly identified in 98% of samples for detection and 99.6% for subtyping. Conclusions: The WHO RSV EQA 2019-2020 showed that laboratories performed at high standards. Updating the composition of RSV molecular EQAs with contemporary strains to ensure representation of circulating strains, and ensuring primer matching with EQA panel viruses, is advantageous in assessing diagnostic competencies of laboratories. Ongoing EQAs are recommended because of continued evolution of mismatches between current circulating strains and existing primer sets.
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.