• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Int J Infect Dis . Nationwide external quality assessment of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests in Japan

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Int J Infect Dis


. 2021 Nov 17;S1201-9712(21)00869-9.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.11.022. Online ahead of print.
Nationwide external quality assessment of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests in Japan


Satomi Asai[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Akira Seki[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Yasumasa Akai[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Hiromitsu Tazawa[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Hidehumi Kakizoe[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Mend-Amar Ravzanaaadii[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Hayato Miyachi[SUP] 7 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Objectives: We conducted a nationwide external quality assessment (EQA) study of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid amplification testing in Japan.
Methods: A total of 563 public health and private sector laboratories participated. The EQA samples comprised 6 RNA and full-process controls.
Results: The overall agreements were 99.3% and 97.9% for the RNA and full-process controls, respectively. A total of 530/563 (94.1%) laboratories reported correct results; public health laboratories had the highest accuracy. Thirty-three laboratories reported at least one incorrect result (26 laboratories of medical facilities, 5 commercial laboratories, 1 public health laboratory, and 1 other). Sixteen laboratories of medical facilities that used a fully automated assay system failed to detect the presence of the full-process control, due to inherent insufficiency in the limit of detection (LOD). Other causes of incorrect results included failure to ensure the LOD (n = 13), error in result judging or reporting (n = 3), and error in sample handling (n = 1).
Conclusions: Performance was mostly dependent on the laboratory category and assay evaluation, particularly the LOD. Guidance should be developed based on these results, particularly in the phase of new entry into laboratory services for SARS-CoV-2.

Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; diagnostics; external quality assessment; molecular.
 
Back
Top Bottom