Comparison of four commercial EBV DNA quantitative tests to a new test at an early stage of development
Rattachement africain : at, ch, de. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: Regular screening for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA using quantitative RT-PCR is recommended for early intervention in at-risk patients. Harmonization of quantitative RT-PCR assays is critical to avoid misinterpretation of results. Here, we compare quantitative results of the cobas® EBV assay to four commercial RT-qPCR assays. METHODS: The cobas EBV, EBV R-Gene, artus EBV RG PCR, RealStar EBV PCR kit 2.0 and Abbott EBV RealTime assays were compared for analytic performance using a 10-fold dilution series of EBV reference material, normalized to the WHO standard. For clinical performance, their quantitative results were compared using anonymized, leftover EBV-DNA-positive EDTA plasma samples. RESULTS: . For clinical performance, accuracy and linearity of cobas EBV data from both study sites were excellent. Bland-Altman bias and Deming regression analyses showed statistical correlation for cobas EBV to both EBV R-Gene and Abbott RealTime assays but an offset of cobas EBV to artus EBV RG PCR and RealStar EBV PCR kit 2.0. CONCLUSION: The cobas EBV showed the closest correlation to the reference material, followed closely by EBV R-Gene and Abbott EBV RealTime. Values obtained are stated in IU/mL, facilitating comparison across testing sites and potentially improving utilization of guidelines for diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of patients.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Comparison of four commercial EBV DNA quantitative tests to a new test at an early stage of development
- Date Crossref
- 01/04/2023
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.