ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2023
A Multi-Laboratory Evaluation of Commercial Monkeypox Virus Molecular Tests.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation and comparison of three qPCR commercial assays and three automated platforms for the detection of monkeypox virus DNA.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Analytical and clinical evaluation of a novel real-time PCR-based detection kit for Mpox virus.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2024Article
- Design and validation of a laboratory-developed diagnostic assay for monkeypox virus.Virus genes · 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
27 authors at 17 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this report, we describe the first national scale multi-laboratory evaluation of monkeypox virus (MPXV) DNA commercial PCR kits. The objective of this study was to evaluate 2 kits by different diagnostic laboratories across Israel. Ten standardized samples were tested simultaneously using the Novaplex (15 laboratories) and Bio-Speedy (seven laboratories) kits. An in-house assay based on previously published reactions was used as reference. Comparison of the results showed high intra-assay agreement between laboratories, with small variations for most samples. The in-house assay had an analytical detection limit of less than 10 copies per reaction. While the 2 commercial kits were able to detect specimens with low viral loads similarly to the in-house assay, significant differences were observed, in the Cq values and relative fluorescence (RF), between the assays. The RF signal of the in-house and Bio-Speedy assays ranged between 5,000 and 10,000 RFU, while the signal in the Novaplex assay was less than 600 RFU. Due to the kit measurement protocol, the Cq values of the Bio-Speedy kit were 5 to 7.5 cycles lower than those of the in-house assay. On the contrary, the Cq values of the Novaplex kit were significantly higher than those of the in-house assay, with differences of 3 to 5 cycles per sample. Our results suggest that while all assays were similar in their overall sensitivity, direct comparison of Cq values between them may be misleading. To our knowledge, this is the first methodical evaluation of commercial MPX test kits. We therefore anticipate that this study would help diagnostic laboratories in choosing a specific MPX detection assay.
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.