Pembrey Lucy, Newell Marie-Louise, Tovo Pier-Angelo, van Drimmelen Harry, Quinti Isabella, Furlini Giuliano, Galli Silvia, Meliconi Maria Grazia, Burns Sheila, Hallam Nick, Sönnerborg Anders, Cilla Gustavo, Serrano Esther, Laccetti Paolo, Portella Giuseppe, Polywka Susanne, Icardi Giancarlo, Bruzzone Bianca, Balbo Luciano, Alfarano Alda
Centre for Paediatric Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom.
J Med Virol. 2003 Feb;69(2):195-201. doi: 10.1002/jmv.10283.
To investigate whether it is appropriate to assume comparability of hepatitis virus C (HCV)-RNA results across laboratories in multi-centre studies, nine laboratories of the European Paediatric HCV Network participated in an international proficiency study of HCV-RNA assays. A panel of 12 samples of different dilutions and genotypes was sent to each laboratory and tested with qualitative and/or quantitative HCV-RNA assays according to local procedures. Commercial assays were used in seven laboratories and in-house assays in two. All six laboratories in which a commercial qualitative assay was used were proficient, as were four of six runs (in five laboratories) in which a commercial quantitative assay was used. The proficiency of the laboratories where in-house assays were used could not be assessed according to the VQC definition because of differences in the methods used. Overall, there were several false-negative results, but only one false-positive result with a quantitative assay and none with a qualitative assay. The false-negative results may have implications for the diagnosis of infection, and highlight the need for an antibody test to be performed at 18 months to confirm the absence of infection. The results of qualitative assays were generally consistent across laboratories but it was difficult to evaluate and compare the results of quantitative assays. Multivariate analysis of data collected in multi-centre studies should therefore allow for centre and/or assay used.
为了调查在多中心研究中假设各实验室丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)-RNA检测结果具有可比性是否合适,欧洲儿科HCV网络的9个实验室参与了一项HCV-RNA检测的国际能力验证研究。一组包含12个不同稀释度和基因型的样本被送至每个实验室,并根据当地程序采用定性和/或定量HCV-RNA检测方法进行检测。7个实验室使用了商业检测方法,2个实验室使用了内部检测方法。使用商业定性检测方法的所有6个实验室均达到了能力验证要求,使用商业定量检测方法的6次检测(在5个实验室中)中有4次达到了能力验证要求。由于所使用方法存在差异,根据室间质量评价(VQC)定义,无法评估使用内部检测方法的实验室的能力验证情况。总体而言,有几个假阴性结果,但定量检测仅有1例假阳性结果,定性检测则无假阳性结果。假阴性结果可能对感染诊断有影响,并突出了在18个月时进行抗体检测以确认未感染的必要性。定性检测结果在各实验室之间总体上是一致的,但定量检测结果难以评估和比较。因此,在多中心研究中收集的数据进行多变量分析时应考虑所使用的中心和/或检测方法。