ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014
Toward standardization of BK virus monitoring: evaluation of the BK virus R-gene kit for quantification of BK viral load in urine, whole-blood, and plasma specimens.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intravenous Immunoglobulin Administration Significantly Increases BKPyV Genotype-Specific Neutralizing Antibody Titers in Kidney Transplant Recipients.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2019Trial
- Neutralizing Antibody-Mediated Response and Risk of BK Virus-Associated Nephropathy.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2018Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Three Nucleic Acid-Based Assays for BK Virus Quantification.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
- Sequence Variation in Amplification Target Genes and Standards Influences Interlaboratory Comparison of BK Virus DNA Load Measurement.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening of BK virus (BKV) replication is recommended to identify patients at increased risk of BKV-associated diseases. However, the heterogeneity of molecular techniques hinders the establishment of universal guidelines for BKV monitoring. Here we aimed to compare the performance of the CE-marked BK virus R-gene kit (R-gene) to the performance of our in-house assay for quantification of BKV DNA loads (BKVL). A 12-specimen panel from the Quality Control for Molecular Diagnostics (QCMD) organization, 163 urine samples, and 88 paired specimens of plasma and whole blood (WB) from transplant recipients were tested. Both the R-gene and in-house assays showed a good correlation within the QCMD panel (r = 0.995 and r = 0.989, respectively). BKVL were highly correlated between assays, although positive biases were observed with the in-house assay in analysis of urine (0.72 ± 0.83 log10 copies/ml), plasma (1.17 ± 0.63 log10 copies/ml), and WB (1.28 ± 0.37 log10 copies/ml). Recalibration with a common calibrator significantly reduced the bias in comparisons between assays. In contrast, BKVL was underestimated with the in-house PCR in eight samples containing BKV genotype II, presenting point mutations at primer-annealing sites. Using the R-gene assay, plasma and WB specimens were found to be equally suitable for quantification of BKVL, as indicated by the high correlation coefficient (r = 0.965, P < 0.0001). In conclusion, the R-gene assay demonstrated reliable performance and higher accuracy than the in-house assay for quantification of BKVL in urine and blood specimens. Screening of BKV replication by a well-validated commercial kit may enable clinical laboratories to assess viral loads with greater reproducibility and precision.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.