ArticleVirology journal2023
Assessing the comparability of cycle threshold values derived from five external quality assessment rounds for omicron nucleic acid testing.
Article in Virology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Admission-time immunologic patterns in hospitalized children withFrontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Effect of Influenza Vaccination on the Disease Severity and Viral Load Among Adult Outpatients and Inpatients.Vaccines · 2025Article
- Droplet Digital PCR or Real-Time PCR as a Method for Quantifying SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Plasma-Is There a Difference?Viruses · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparison of two polymerase chain reaction assays, DaAn Gene (DaAn Gene 2019-ncov) and Cepheid (Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2) for Delta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2 detection in Yaoundé, Cameroon.Journal of public health in Africa · 2025Article
- Cycle Threshold Values of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR during Outbreaks in Nursing Homes: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA variety of open-system real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays for several acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 are currently in use. This study aimed to ensure the quality of omicron nucleic acid testing and to assess the comparability of cycle threshold (Ct) values derived from RT-PCR.
methodsFive external quality assessment (EQA) rounds using the omicron virus-like particles were organized between February 2022 and June 2022.
resultsA total of 1401 qualitative EQA reports have been collected. The overall positive percentage agreement was 99.72%, the negative percentage agreement was 99.75%, and the percent agreement was 99.73%. This study observed a significant variance in Ct values derived from different test systems. There was a wide heterogeneity in PCR efficiency among different RT-PCR kits and inter-laboratories.
conclusionThere was strong concordance among laboratories performing qualitative omicron nucleic acid testing. Ct values from qualitative RT-PCR tests should not be used for clinical or epidemiological decision-making to avoid the potential for misinterpretation of the results.
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.