4.6 Article

Quality control assessment for the PCR diagnosis of tick-borne encephalitis virus infections

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 73-77

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2006.09.001

Keywords

tick-borne encephalitis virus; RT-PCR; EQA; diagnostic; ENIVD

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is an efficient method for the early detection of tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) RNA in blood and serum samples taken prior to the appearance of antibodies. Improved diagnostics are critical for optimally detecting and managing TBE infections and quality control measures are therefore essential. Objective: To assess the diagnostic quality of laboratories by performing an external quality assurance (EQA) programme for the molecular detection of TBE infections. Study design: A panel of 12 prepared human plasma samples were distributed and tested for the presence of TBEV-specific RNA. The panel comprised eight samples spiked with different TBEV strains of European, Siberian and Far Eastern subtypes, and included a 10-fold dilution series. Two specificity controls consisted of a sample with Louping ill virus (LIV) and a sample with a pool of four other flaviviruses, and two negative control samples were further included. Results: Twenty-three laboratories from 16 European and 2 non-European countries participated in this EQA programme. Only two participants correctly identified all samples. Nine laboratories correctly identified 75.0-91.7% of the samples; seven laboratories correctly identified 54.5-66.7% and five laboratories correctly identified <= 50%. Conclusions: The EQA programme provides information on the quality of the RT-PCR methods used by the participating laboratories and indicates that most of these need to improve sensitivity and specificity of their molecular assays for TBEV. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available