4.6 Article

External quality assessment for molecular detection of human papillomaviruses

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY
卷 48, 期 4, 页码 251-254

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2010.05.006

关键词

HPV; Human papillomavirus; EQA; External quality assessment

类别

资金

  1. Chief Scientist Office [CZB/4/658] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Chief Scientist Office [CZB/4/658] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Service (UK NEQAS) distributes clinically relevant and educational specimens for external quality assessment (EQA). Objectives: The aim of this report was to assess the suitability of using liquid based cytology (LBC) samples for the EQA of molecular methods and to review the methods used by participants to detect the presence of high risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes. Study design: Three pilot distributions were dispatched between January 2008 and January 2009 with each distribution consisting of four different specimens. Results: Performance was good with over 90% of participants reporting correctly on the presence or absence of high risk genotypes in all but one specimen, specimen 9006 (82.1%). Specimen 9006 was a pooled specimen, negative for HR genotypes but containing low risk (LR) genotypes 61, 70 and 81. The most commonly used assay for the detection of the presence of HR HPV was the Digene Hybrid Capture II assay. The in-house PCR assays were most commonly associated with incorrect results, and the use of these assays decreased during the 13 month pilot study. Conclusions: The UK NEQAS molecular detection of HPV scheme provides a standardised, homogeneous and characterised clinical specimen, however this study has shown that genotyping results reported by participants were still varied. Inclusion of available HPV standards will help to standardise assays. Robust EQA of HPV molecular screening programmes will be essential for monitoring the impact of the HPV vaccine. (C) 2010 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据