ArticleFrontiers in immunology2023
An external quality assessment feasibility study; cross laboratory comparison of haemagglutination inhibition assay and microneutralization assay performance for seasonal influenza serology testing: A FLUCOP study.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A colorimetric readout based on the PrestoBlue® dye as an objective method for measuring neutralizing antibodies against influenza virus in human serum samples.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Seasonal influenza vaccines: Variability of immune responses to B lineage viruses.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Review
- Article
- Haemagglutination inhibition and virus microneutralisation serology assays: use of harmonised protocols and biological standards in seasonal influenza serology testing and their impact on inter-laboratory variation and assay correlation: A FLUCOP collaborative study.Frontiers in immunology · 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
33 authors at 12 institutions in 10 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: External Quality Assessment (EQA) schemes are designed to provide a snapshot of laboratory proficiency, identifying issues and providing feedback to improve laboratory performance and inter-laboratory agreement in testing. Currently there are no international EQA schemes for seasonal influenza serology testing. Here we present a feasibility study for conducting an EQA scheme for influenza serology methods. Methods: We invited participant laboratories from industry, contract research organizations (CROs), academia and public health institutions who regularly conduct hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) and microneutralization (MN) assays and have an interest in serology standardization. In total 16 laboratories returned data including 19 data sets for HAI assays and 9 data sets for MN assays. Results: Within run analysis demonstrated good laboratory performance for HAI, with intrinsically higher levels of intra-assay variation for MN assays. Between run analysis showed laboratory and strain specific issues, particularly with B strains for HAI, whilst MN testing was consistently good across labs and strains. Inter-laboratory variability was higher for MN assays than HAI, however both assays showed a significant reduction in inter-laboratory variation when a human sera pool is used as a standard for normalization. Discussion: This study has received positive feedback from participants, highlighting the benefit such an EQA scheme would have on improving laboratory performance, reducing inter laboratory variation and raising awareness of both harmonized protocol use and the benefit of biological standards for seasonal influenza serology testing.
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.