ArticleJournal of medical virology2024
Performance Evaluation of Molecular Detection of Enteroviruses: Results of 18 Years of Quality Control for Molecular Diagnostics (QCMD) External Quality Assessment Program, 2005-2022.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2024. 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.
- Seroepidemiology of Enterovirus D68 in Xiamen Children: A Cross-Sectional Study in 2022.Viruses · 2026Article
- External quality assurance of molecular serotype detection of dengue virus RNA among virus research and diagnostic laboratories in India.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a sample-to-answer real-time PCR assay for enterovirus detection in cerebrospinal fluid.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The gold standard for enterovirus (EV) detection is the polymerase chain reaction based on the detection of the 5' untranslated region of the virus. Correct detection of EV is crucial for patient and public health purposes. The performance of diagnostic and public health laboratories on molecular EV-detection was analyzed using data from the external quality assessment program distributed by Quality Control for Molecular Diagnostics (QCMD) between 2005 and 2022. Overall performance on core samples of both laboratory types has improved over the years for in-house or commercial assays (overall performance rate > 94.8%) since 2013. A similar improvement was observed for negative/specificity samples. Performance on EV-positive samples varied, with the lowest performance observed on samples containing enterovirus D68 (B3 strain) and echovirus 11. Significant differences in performance were observed between laboratory and assay types. Performance of diagnostic laboratories (91.8) was significantly higher than of public health laboratories (89.9%; p < 0.0001). Additionally, a significant higher performance of diagnostic laboratories using commercial assays was observed (92.5% vs. 91.2% for in-house assays; p < 0.0001). In contrast, the performance of public health laboratories using in-house assays (90.1%) was higher than commercial assays (89.2%; p = 0.3608). The data document the improved performance of diagnostic and public health laboratories using either commercial or in-house assays.
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.