ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2025
Excellent capability for molecular detection of
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mosquito-borne viruses represent a large global health burden. With geographic expansion of competent vectors for chikungunya virus (CHIKV), dengue virus (DENV), and Zika virus (ZIKV) in Europe, it is anticipated that the number of autochthonous cases of these tropical viruses in Europe will increase. Therefore, regular assessment of diagnostic capabilities in Europe is important. Our aim was to evaluate the mosquito-borne virus molecular detection capability of expert European laboratories by conducting an external quality assessment in October 2023. Molecular panels included 12 plasma samples: one alphavirus (CHIKV), four orthoflaviviruses (ZIKV, yellow fever virus [YFV], DENV, and Japanese encephalitis virus [JEV]), and two negative control samples. Mosquito-borne virus detection was assessed among 36 laboratories in 24 European countries. Adequate capabilities were lacking for YFV and JEV. Many laboratories relied on a mix of laboratory-developed tests (some of which were pan-orthoflavivirus or pan-alphavirus in combination with sequencing) and commercial assays. 47.2% of laboratories characterized all external quality assessment (EQA) samples correctly. Correct result rates were 100% for CHIKV and ZIKV and >99% for DENV, but laboratories lacked capacity, specificity, and sensitivity for JEV and YFV. Three of the viruses in this panel emerged and transiently circulated in Europe: CHIKV, ZIKV, and DENV. Molecular detection was excellent for those viruses, but <50% is accurate for the remainder of the panel. With the possibility or continuation of imported cases and a growing global concern about climate change and vector expansion, progress toward rapid, accurate mosquito-borne virus diagnostics in Europe is recommended, as well as regular EQAs to monitor it.IMPORTANCEThe external quality assessment (EQA) focused on
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.