Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38118017›Full record

ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2023

Evaluating Quality Management and Diagnostics Microbiology Performance Within an International External Quality Assessment (EQA) Program Serving National One Health Sector Reference Laboratories Across Asia: Experience Amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic.

Freshwork Ayalew Abegaz, Patrícia Teixeira Dos Santos, Ondari D Mogeni, Tobin Guarnacci, Nimesh Poudyal, Jinhui Hong, Soo Young Kwon, Rikke Braae, Rangsiya Prathan, Taradon Luang Tongkum and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Freshwork Ayalew AbegazInternational Vaccine Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Patrícia Teixeira Dos SantosThe Technical University of Denmark, National Food Institute, WHO Collaborating Center for Antimicrobial Resistance in Foodborne Pathogens and Genomics and European Union Reference Laboratory for Antimicrobial Resistance, FAO Reference Laboratory for Antimicrobial Resistance, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Ondari D MogeniInternational Vaccine Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Tobin GuarnacciInternational Vaccine Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Nimesh PoudyalInternational Vaccine Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jinhui HongInternational Vaccine Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Soo Young KwonInternational Vaccine Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Rikke BraaeThe Technical University of Denmark, National Food Institute, WHO Collaborating Center for Antimicrobial Resistance in Foodborne Pathogens and Genomics and European Union Reference Laboratory for Antimicrobial Resistance, FAO Reference Laboratory for Antimicrobial Resistance, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Rangsiya PrathanResearch Unit for Microbial Food Safety and Antimicrobial Resistance, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Taradon Luang TongkumResearch Unit for Microbial Food Safety and Antimicrobial Resistance, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Watcharaporn KamjumphoNational Institute of Health, Bangkok, Thailand.
Rungtip ChuanchuenResearch Unit for Microbial Food Safety and Antimicrobial Resistance, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Florian MarksInternational Vaccine Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Rene S HendriksenThe Technical University of Denmark, National Food Institute, WHO Collaborating Center for Antimicrobial Resistance in Foodborne Pathogens and Genomics and European Union Reference Laboratory for Antimicrobial Resistance, FAO Reference Laboratory for Antimicrobial Resistance, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Marianne HolmInternational Vaccine Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

Fleming Fund Regional Grant FF64-474
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStrengthening external quality assessment (EQA) services across the One Health sector supports implementation of effective antimicrobial resistance (AMR) control strategies. Here we describe and compare 2 different approaches for conducting virtual laboratory follow-up assessments within an EQA program to evaluate quality management system (QMS) and procedures for pathogen identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST).

methodsDuring the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2021 and 2022, 2 laboratory assessment approaches were introduced: virtual-based and survey-based methodologies. The evaluation of 2 underperforming Animal Health laboratories through a virtual-based approach occurred between May and August 2021. This evaluation encompassed the utilization of 3 online meetings and document reviews, performed subsequent to the execution of EQA procedures. Within a distinct group of laboratories, the survey-based assessment was implemented from December 2021 to February 2022, also following EQA procedures. This phase encompassed the dissemination of an online survey to 31 participating laboratories, alongside a sole online consultation meeting involving 4 specific underperforming laboratories.

resultsThe virtual-based assessment post-EQA aimed to identify gaps and areas for improvement in the laboratory's practices for pathogen identification and AST. This approach was, however, time-intensive, and, hence, only 2 laboratories were assessed. In addition, limited interactions in virtual platforms compromised the assessment quality. The survey-based post-EQA assessment enabled evaluation of 31 laboratories. Despite limitations for in-depth analysis of each procedure, gaps in QMS across multiple laboratories were identified and tailored laboratory-specific recommendations were provided.

conclusionsReliable internet and plans for efficient time management, post-EQA virtual laboratory follow-up assessments are an effective alternative when conducting onsite evaluation is infeasible as observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, although the successful implementation of remediation plans will likely require in person assessments. We advocate application of hybrid approaches (both onsite and virtual) for targeted capacity building of AMR procedures with the ability to implement and oversee the process.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsCOVID-19One HealthAsiaCOVID-19 TestingHumansLaboratoriesPandemicsQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality ControlAnti-Infective Agentsantimicrobial resistanceexternal quality assessmentone healthquality management systemremote assessment

Identifiers

PMID38118017
PMCPMC10732555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.