Quality control assessment for the serological diagnosis of tick borne encephalitis virus infections

Abstract Background The diagnosis of tick borne encephalitis (TBE) is mainly based on the demonstration of specific antibodies in serum when neurological disease is manifested. Improving diagnostics is the most important step in detecting and dealing with these pathogens. Quality control measures ar...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of clinical virology 2007-03, Vol.38 (3), p.260-264
Hauptverfasser: Niedrig, Matthias, Avšič, Tatjana, Aberle, Stephan W, Ferenczi, Emöke, Labuda, Milan, Rozentale, Baiba, Donoso Mantke, Oliver
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Background The diagnosis of tick borne encephalitis (TBE) is mainly based on the demonstration of specific antibodies in serum when neurological disease is manifested. Improving diagnostics is the most important step in detecting and dealing with these pathogens. Quality control measures are essential for TBE diagnosis. Objective To assess an external quality assurance (EQA) program for the serologic diagnosis of TBE infections. Study design A panel of 12 serum samples was sent out to be tested for the presence of TBE virus-specific IgM and IgG. This panel contained seven TBE-positive samples for IgM and/or IgG; three negative samples; two samples positive either for West Nile virus (WNV) or Dengue virus (DENV). Results Fourty-two laboratories from 25 European and 2 non-European countries participated in this EQA. The correct answer by each laboratory for all samples ranked between 58 and 96% and sera with IgM antibody positive for TBE were correctly recognized by 46–88% of the laboratories. Sera with IgG antibody positive for TBE were correctly recognized by 83–95% of the laboratories. False TBE-positive results were obtained with DENV, WNV or negative sera only for IgG-based assays. Conclusion Correct results for at least 90% of the samples were obtained by 33 of 40 participating laboratories for IgM and for 16 of 42 laboratories for IgG.
ISSN:1386-6532
1873-5967
DOI:10.1016/j.jcv.2006.12.013