4.6 Article

First international external quality assessment of molecular diagnostics for Mers-CoV

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY
卷 69, 期 -, 页码 81-85

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2015.05.022

关键词

MERS-CoV; Real-time RT-PCR; EQA; QPCR; Molecular; Diagnosis; Viral load; Quality control

类别

资金

  1. European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) by supporting the European Network for Diagnostics of 'Imported' Viral Diseases (ENIVD) [1 ECD.4221-FW/ECDC/2013/012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Since the discovery of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in 2012, diagnostic protocols were quickly published and deployed globally. Objectives: We set out to assess the quality of MERS-CoV molecular diagnostics worldwide. Study design: Both sensitivity and specificity were assessed using 12 samples containing different viral loads of MERS-CoV or common coronaviruses (OC43, 229E, NL63, HKU1). Results: The panel was sent to more than 106 participants, of which 99 laboratories from 6 continents returned 189 panel results. Scores ranged from 100% (84 laboratories) to 33% (1 laboratory). 15% of respondents reported quantitative results, 61% semi-quantitative (Ct-values or time to positivity) and 24% reported qualitative results. The major specific technique used was real-time RT-PCR using the WHO recommended targets upE, ORF1a and ORF1b. The evaluation confirmed that RT-PCRs targeting the ORF1b are less sensitive, and therefore not advised for primary diagnostics. Conclusions: The first external quality assessment MERS-CoV panel gives a good insight in molecular diagnostic techniques and their performances for sensitive and specific detection of MERS-CoV RNA globally. Overall, all laboratories were capable of detecting MERS-CoV with some differences in sensitivity. The observation that 8% of laboratories reported false MERS-CoV positive single assay results shows room for improvement, and the importance of using confirmatory targets. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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