通过外部质量控制样本数据评估传染性单核细胞增多症的血清学床旁检测。

Microbiology insights Pub Date : 2020-12-03 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1177/1178636120977481
Salla J Kiiskinen, Oskari Luomala, Teija Häkkinen, Susanna Lukinmaa-Åberg, Anja Siitonen
{"title":"通过外部质量控制样本数据评估传染性单核细胞增多症的血清学床旁检测。","authors":"Salla J Kiiskinen, Oskari Luomala, Teija Häkkinen, Susanna Lukinmaa-Åberg, Anja Siitonen","doi":"10.1177/1178636120977481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Timely and reliable laboratory diagnostics is a necessity for patient safety and good patient management. Success in external quality assessment (EQA) reflects on the everyday work in a clinical laboratory. This study evaluated the reliability of serological point-of-care (POC) testing for the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) that causes infectious mononucleosis (IM). Data from the results of 95 external quality control (EQC) samples, altogether 18 885 results during an eight-year period (2010-2017) were collected from 273 Finnish testing sites. Diagnosing acute infectious mononucleosis (EBV IM) is based on clinical, haematological and serological findings. Heterophile antibody tests are used for this purpose because they can be carried out at POC and are cheap and robust to perform. In this study, the data showed that the testing sites used 3 test methods and 17 different test kits; of the kits, 4 were used during the whole study period. The most commonly used test methods were immunochromatographic assays (12 test kits, 17 959 EQC results). Latex agglutination (4 test kits, 504 results) and immunofiltration test methods (one kit, 422 results) were also used. The overall success rate was 99.3% (for positive samples 99.6%, for negative samples 99.1%). The success rates of the different test methods varied from 94.3% for the immunofiltration method to 99.6% for the latex agglutination method. The lowest success rates were found for negative samples: 82.0% (QuickVue, Quidel [immunochromatographic method]), 91.3% (RDT EBV IgM Assay, Bio-Rad [immunofiltration method]). The results of the negative samples that represented old EBV immunity were the most difficult to interpret with a success rate of 98.9% compared to success rates of clearly positive (99.6%) and negative (99.5%) samples (<i>P</i> < .001). Especially the immunofiltration method (RDT EBV IgM Assay) produced 13.7% false positive results for samples of old immunity. The data showed that 42 of the studied 95 EBV IM EQA rounds were reported as expected (true positive or true negative) by all testing sites.</p>","PeriodicalId":74187,"journal":{"name":"Microbiology insights","volume":"13 ","pages":"1178636120977481"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7720297/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the Serological Point-of-Care Testing of Infectious Mononucleosis by Data of External Quality Control Samples.\",\"authors\":\"Salla J Kiiskinen, Oskari Luomala, Teija Häkkinen, Susanna Lukinmaa-Åberg, Anja Siitonen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1178636120977481\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Timely and reliable laboratory diagnostics is a necessity for patient safety and good patient management. Success in external quality assessment (EQA) reflects on the everyday work in a clinical laboratory. This study evaluated the reliability of serological point-of-care (POC) testing for the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) that causes infectious mononucleosis (IM). Data from the results of 95 external quality control (EQC) samples, altogether 18 885 results during an eight-year period (2010-2017) were collected from 273 Finnish testing sites. Diagnosing acute infectious mononucleosis (EBV IM) is based on clinical, haematological and serological findings. Heterophile antibody tests are used for this purpose because they can be carried out at POC and are cheap and robust to perform. In this study, the data showed that the testing sites used 3 test methods and 17 different test kits; of the kits, 4 were used during the whole study period. The most commonly used test methods were immunochromatographic assays (12 test kits, 17 959 EQC results). Latex agglutination (4 test kits, 504 results) and immunofiltration test methods (one kit, 422 results) were also used. The overall success rate was 99.3% (for positive samples 99.6%, for negative samples 99.1%). The success rates of the different test methods varied from 94.3% for the immunofiltration method to 99.6% for the latex agglutination method. The lowest success rates were found for negative samples: 82.0% (QuickVue, Quidel [immunochromatographic method]), 91.3% (RDT EBV IgM Assay, Bio-Rad [immunofiltration method]). The results of the negative samples that represented old EBV immunity were the most difficult to interpret with a success rate of 98.9% compared to success rates of clearly positive (99.6%) and negative (99.5%) samples (<i>P</i> < .001). Especially the immunofiltration method (RDT EBV IgM Assay) produced 13.7% false positive results for samples of old immunity. The data showed that 42 of the studied 95 EBV IM EQA rounds were reported as expected (true positive or true negative) by all testing sites.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74187,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Microbiology insights\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"1178636120977481\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7720297/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Microbiology insights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1178636120977481\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microbiology insights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1178636120977481","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

及时可靠的实验室诊断是保证患者安全和良好患者管理的必要条件。外部质量评估(EQA)的成功反映了临床实验室的日常工作。本研究评估了针对导致传染性单核细胞增多症(IM)的爱泼斯坦-巴氏病毒(EBV)的血清学床旁(POC)检测的可靠性。研究人员从芬兰273个检测点收集了95份外部质量控制(EQC)样本的检测结果数据,在八年时间里(2010-2017年)共收集了18885份检测结果。急性传染性单核细胞增多症(EBV IM)的诊断基于临床、血液学和血清学结果。嗜异性抗体检测可在 POC 上进行,且成本低廉、操作简便,因此被广泛应用。本研究的数据显示,检测点使用了 3 种检测方法和 17 种不同的检测试剂盒;在整个研究期间,使用了 4 种试剂盒。最常用的检测方法是免疫层析检测法(12 种检测试剂盒,17 959 项 EQC 结果)。此外,还使用了乳胶凝集法(4 种检测试剂盒,504 项检测结果)和免疫过滤检测法(1 种试剂盒,422 项检测结果)。总体成功率为 99.3%(阳性样本为 99.6%,阴性样本为 99.1%)。不同检测方法的成功率从免疫过滤法的 94.3%到乳胶凝集法的 99.6%不等。阴性样本的成功率最低:82.0%(QuickVue,Quidel [免疫层析法]),91.3%(RDT EBV IgM 检测法,Bio-Rad [免疫过滤法])。代表老 EBV 免疫力的阴性样本的结果最难解读,成功率为 98.9%,而明显阳性(99.6%)和阴性(99.5%)样本的成功率(P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Evaluation of the Serological Point-of-Care Testing of Infectious Mononucleosis by Data of External Quality Control Samples.

Evaluation of the Serological Point-of-Care Testing of Infectious Mononucleosis by Data of External Quality Control Samples.

Evaluation of the Serological Point-of-Care Testing of Infectious Mononucleosis by Data of External Quality Control Samples.

Evaluation of the Serological Point-of-Care Testing of Infectious Mononucleosis by Data of External Quality Control Samples.

Timely and reliable laboratory diagnostics is a necessity for patient safety and good patient management. Success in external quality assessment (EQA) reflects on the everyday work in a clinical laboratory. This study evaluated the reliability of serological point-of-care (POC) testing for the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) that causes infectious mononucleosis (IM). Data from the results of 95 external quality control (EQC) samples, altogether 18 885 results during an eight-year period (2010-2017) were collected from 273 Finnish testing sites. Diagnosing acute infectious mononucleosis (EBV IM) is based on clinical, haematological and serological findings. Heterophile antibody tests are used for this purpose because they can be carried out at POC and are cheap and robust to perform. In this study, the data showed that the testing sites used 3 test methods and 17 different test kits; of the kits, 4 were used during the whole study period. The most commonly used test methods were immunochromatographic assays (12 test kits, 17 959 EQC results). Latex agglutination (4 test kits, 504 results) and immunofiltration test methods (one kit, 422 results) were also used. The overall success rate was 99.3% (for positive samples 99.6%, for negative samples 99.1%). The success rates of the different test methods varied from 94.3% for the immunofiltration method to 99.6% for the latex agglutination method. The lowest success rates were found for negative samples: 82.0% (QuickVue, Quidel [immunochromatographic method]), 91.3% (RDT EBV IgM Assay, Bio-Rad [immunofiltration method]). The results of the negative samples that represented old EBV immunity were the most difficult to interpret with a success rate of 98.9% compared to success rates of clearly positive (99.6%) and negative (99.5%) samples (P < .001). Especially the immunofiltration method (RDT EBV IgM Assay) produced 13.7% false positive results for samples of old immunity. The data showed that 42 of the studied 95 EBV IM EQA rounds were reported as expected (true positive or true negative) by all testing sites.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信