SARS-CoV-2病毒基因组检测外部质量评估回合的结果,重点是检测的敏感性和样本池

C. Buchta, J. Camp, J. Jovanović, E. Puchhammer-Stöckl, R. Strassl, MATHIAS M. MüLLER, A. Griesmacher, S. Aberle, I. Görzer
{"title":"SARS-CoV-2病毒基因组检测外部质量评估回合的结果,重点是检测的敏感性和样本池","authors":"C. Buchta, J. Camp, J. Jovanović, E. Puchhammer-Stöckl, R. Strassl, MATHIAS M. MüLLER, A. Griesmacher, S. Aberle, I. Görzer","doi":"10.1515/cclm-2022-0263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives Results of earlier external quality assessment (EQA) rounds suggested remarkable differences in the sensitivity of SARS-CoV PCR assays. Although the test systems are intended to detect SARS-CoV-2 in individual samples, screening is often applied to sample pools to increase efficiency and decrease costs. However, it is unknown to what extent these tests actually meet the manufacturer’s specifications for sensitivity and how they perform when testing sample pools. Methods The sensitivity of assays in routine use was evaluated with a panel of positive samples in a round of a SARS-CoV-2 virus genome detection EQA scheme. The panel consisted of samples at or near the lower limit of detection (“weakly positive”). Laboratories that routinely test sample pools were asked to also analyze the pooled EQA samples according to their usual pool size and dilution method. Results All participants could detect a highly positive patient-derived sample (>106 copies/mL). Most (96%) of the test systems could detect at least 1,000 copies/mL, meeting the minimum acceptable benchmark, and many (94%) detected the vRNA in a sample with lower concentration (500 copies/mL). The false negative ratio increased to 16 and 26% for samples with 100 and 50 copies/mL, respectively. Conclusions The performance of most assays met or exceeded their specification on sensitivity. If assays are to be used to analyze sample pools, the sensitivity of the assay and the number of pooled samples must be balanced.","PeriodicalId":10388,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Results of a SARS-CoV-2 virus genome detection external quality assessment round focusing on sensitivity of assays and pooling of samples\",\"authors\":\"C. Buchta, J. Camp, J. Jovanović, E. Puchhammer-Stöckl, R. Strassl, MATHIAS M. MüLLER, A. Griesmacher, S. Aberle, I. Görzer\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/cclm-2022-0263\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objectives Results of earlier external quality assessment (EQA) rounds suggested remarkable differences in the sensitivity of SARS-CoV PCR assays. Although the test systems are intended to detect SARS-CoV-2 in individual samples, screening is often applied to sample pools to increase efficiency and decrease costs. However, it is unknown to what extent these tests actually meet the manufacturer’s specifications for sensitivity and how they perform when testing sample pools. Methods The sensitivity of assays in routine use was evaluated with a panel of positive samples in a round of a SARS-CoV-2 virus genome detection EQA scheme. The panel consisted of samples at or near the lower limit of detection (“weakly positive”). Laboratories that routinely test sample pools were asked to also analyze the pooled EQA samples according to their usual pool size and dilution method. Results All participants could detect a highly positive patient-derived sample (>106 copies/mL). Most (96%) of the test systems could detect at least 1,000 copies/mL, meeting the minimum acceptable benchmark, and many (94%) detected the vRNA in a sample with lower concentration (500 copies/mL). The false negative ratio increased to 16 and 26% for samples with 100 and 50 copies/mL, respectively. Conclusions The performance of most assays met or exceeded their specification on sensitivity. If assays are to be used to analyze sample pools, the sensitivity of the assay and the number of pooled samples must be balanced.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-0263\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-0263","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

【摘要】目的早期的外部质量评价(EQA)结果表明,SARS-CoV PCR检测的敏感性存在显著差异。虽然测试系统旨在检测单个样本中的SARS-CoV-2,但筛选通常应用于样本池,以提高效率和降低成本。然而,目前尚不清楚这些测试在多大程度上符合制造商的灵敏度规格,以及它们在测试样品池时的表现如何。方法采用一轮SARS-CoV-2病毒基因组检测EQA方案中的阳性样本,对常规检测方法的敏感性进行评价。该小组由处于或接近检测下限(“弱阳性”)的样本组成。要求常规测试样品池的实验室也根据其通常的池大小和稀释方法分析合并的EQA样品。结果所有参与者均能检测到高阳性的患者来源样本(>106拷贝/mL)。大多数(96%)测试系统可以检测到至少1000拷贝/mL,满足最低可接受基准,许多(94%)检测到较低浓度(500拷贝/mL)样品中的vRNA。在100拷贝/mL和50拷贝/mL的样品中,假阴性率分别增加到16%和26%。结论大多数检测方法的灵敏度均达到或超过其标准。如果要用测定法分析样品池,测定法的灵敏度和样品池的数量必须平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Results of a SARS-CoV-2 virus genome detection external quality assessment round focusing on sensitivity of assays and pooling of samples
Abstract Objectives Results of earlier external quality assessment (EQA) rounds suggested remarkable differences in the sensitivity of SARS-CoV PCR assays. Although the test systems are intended to detect SARS-CoV-2 in individual samples, screening is often applied to sample pools to increase efficiency and decrease costs. However, it is unknown to what extent these tests actually meet the manufacturer’s specifications for sensitivity and how they perform when testing sample pools. Methods The sensitivity of assays in routine use was evaluated with a panel of positive samples in a round of a SARS-CoV-2 virus genome detection EQA scheme. The panel consisted of samples at or near the lower limit of detection (“weakly positive”). Laboratories that routinely test sample pools were asked to also analyze the pooled EQA samples according to their usual pool size and dilution method. Results All participants could detect a highly positive patient-derived sample (>106 copies/mL). Most (96%) of the test systems could detect at least 1,000 copies/mL, meeting the minimum acceptable benchmark, and many (94%) detected the vRNA in a sample with lower concentration (500 copies/mL). The false negative ratio increased to 16 and 26% for samples with 100 and 50 copies/mL, respectively. Conclusions The performance of most assays met or exceeded their specification on sensitivity. If assays are to be used to analyze sample pools, the sensitivity of the assay and the number of pooled samples must be balanced.
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
×
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