ReviewJournal of clinical microbiology2025
All you need to know about equipment validation for sterility testing.
Review 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.
- Finding the middle way: rethinking cGMP for sterility testing of cellular therapy products in minimal manipulation settings.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Reply to "Finding the middle way: rethinking cGMP for sterility testing of cellular therapy products in minimal manipulation settings".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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Product sterility testing requests are becoming increasingly common in clinical microbiology laboratories due to the rapid development of advanced therapies. Most laboratory directors are hesitant to bring on such tests because they fall under current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), where expectations differ from clinical requirements (regulated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). When considerations are made for cGMP testing in the clinical lab, most focus is placed on analytical test validation. In this mini-review, we provide an overview of one critical element within the cGMP quality system-validation of equipment, software, and systems through installation, operational, and performance qualification (IQ, OQ, and PQ or IOPQ). This terminology is not common in clinical laboratories, and the IQ and OQ portions are often overlooked, not performed, and/or not documented, although phase II CAP requirements exist (COM.30550 and COM.30575). This mini-review will provide an overview of the IOPQ framework, what is included and how it differs from CAP requirements, important considerations for an IOPQ, and a summary of FDA citations relating to equipment validation. We provide examples using blood culture systems, controlled temperature units (CTUs; e.g., incubator), and the laboratory information management system, given their likelihood for use in cGMP activities in the clinical lab. Importantly, the IOPQ requirements summarized here would have also been relevant to laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) classified as "devices" prior to the March 31, 2025, annulment of the ruling.
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.