ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2025
Inter-laboratory variability in cytomegalovirus DNA quantification: implications for standardization and clinical monitoring.
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.
- Analytical Performance and Inter-Method Agreement of a Laboratory-Developed CMV qPCR Assay in Clinical Plasma Samples.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Molecular detection of cytomegalovirus in hospitalized children: a cross-sectional study in Makassar, Indonesia.The Pan African medical journal · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection monitoring is a key element in the management of immunocompromised patients. CMV DNA quantification in plasma or whole blood is the best indicator for clinicians to adjust immunosuppressive or antiviral therapies. Despite the availability of internationally standardized material, the commutability of CMV quantification results across laboratories remains inadequate. To assess inter-laboratory variability in CMV DNA quantification, we conducted a blinded study in seven independent laboratories. Each participant received a panel of 92 specimens for CMV quantification using their routinely used standard platform. While quantifications were highly correlated and reproducible, large discrepancies were observed with differences up to 1.45 log
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.