4.6 Article

Interlaboratory Comparison of Epstein-Barr Virus Viral Load Assays

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 269-279

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02514.x

关键词

EBV; interlaboratory variation; quantitative NAT (QNAT); standardization; viral load

资金

  1. American Society of Transplantation
  2. Canadian Society of Transplantation by Roche Canada
  3. Emory Center for AIDS Research [P30 AI050409]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To assess interlaboratory variability in qualitative and quantitative Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) viral load (VL) testing, we distributed a panel of samples to 28 laboratories in the USA, Canada and Europe who performed testing using commercially available reagents (n = 12) or laboratory-developed assays (n = 18). The panel included two negatives, seven constructed samples using Namalwa and Molt-3 cell lines diluted in plasma (1.30-5.30 log(10) copies/mL) and three clinical plasma samples. Significant interlaboratory variation was observed for both actual (range 1.30-4.30 log(10) copies/mL) and self-reported (range, 1.70-3.30 log(10) copies/mL) lower limits of detection. The variation observed in reported results on individual samples ranged from 2.28 log(10) (minimum) to 4.14 log(10) (maximum). Variation was independent of dynamic range and use of commercial versus laboratory-developed assays. Overall, only 47.0% of all results fell within acceptable standards of variation: defined as the expected result +/- 0.50 log(10). Interlaboratory variability on replicate samples was significantly greater than intralaboratory variability (p < 0.0001). Kinetics of change in VL appears more relevant than absolute values and clinicians should understand the uncertainty associated with absolute VL values at their institutions. The creation of an international reference standard for EBV VL assay calibration would be an initial important step in quality improvement of this laboratory tool.

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