ArticleInfluenza and other respiratory viruses2026
Results From the Third and Fourth WHO External Quality Assessments for the Molecular Detection of Respiratory Syncytial Virus.
Article in Influenza and other respiratory viruses, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comment on "Results From the Third and Fourth WHO External Quality Assessments for the Molecular Detection of Respiratory Syncytial Virus".Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) initiated the global RSV surveillance programme, which aimed to strengthen laboratory diagnostic capacity and evaluate molecular detection test performance. External quality assessments (EQAs) are conducted regularly as part of this programme to ensure ongoing laboratory proficiency. The third (2021-2022) and the fourth (2023-2024) WHO RSV EQAs were conducted to evaluate the ability of participating laboratories to accurately detect and subtype RSV.
methodsFor each EQA panel, 12 lyophilised RSV isolates were prepared using both recently circulating and RSV strains used in previous EQAs. The isolates were shipped to 81 and 85 laboratories in the third and fourth EQA, respectively. Participants tested the specimens using their routine molecular diagnostic protocols and reported the results through the UK NEQAS online platform. Performance was evaluated based on detection and subtyping accuracy, and a scoring system was used that ranged from good performance (24/24 correct results) to unacceptable (≤ 16 correct results).
resultsA total of 73 (90.1%) and 74 (87.1%) laboratories returned results for the third and fourth RSV molecular EQAs, respectively. In the third EQA, 69.9% of laboratories were classified as good, 15.1% as acceptable and 1.4% as satisfactory, resulting in 86.3% within the desirable range; 12.3% were unacceptable and 1.4% poor. In the fourth EQA, 60.8% were good, 28.4% acceptable and 2.7% satisfactory, with 91.9% in the desirable range; 8.1% were unacceptable, and none were poor.
conclusionThe third and fourth WHO RSV EQA demonstrated good overall laboratory performance for RSV molecular detection and subtyping. These findings highlight the importance of EQA to document high-quality diagnostics, especially with the introduction of RSV vaccines and monoclonal antibodies. Ongoing EQAs, including the first WHO RSV sequencing EQA initiated in 2024, will further enhance global laboratory capacity for RSV surveillance and outbreak response.
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.