Re-testing as a method of implementing external quality assessment program for COVID-19 real time PCR testing in Uganda.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2024
2024
Historique:
received:
02
06
2023
accepted:
08
11
2023
medline:
26
1
2024
pubmed:
24
1
2024
entrez:
24
1
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Significant milestones have been made in the development of COVID19 diagnostics Technologies. Government of the republic of Uganda and the line Ministry of Health mandated Uganda Virus Research Institute to ensure quality of COVID19 diagnostics. Re-testing was one of the methods initiated by the UVRI to implement External Quality assessment of COVID19 molecular diagnostics. participating laboratories were required by UVRI to submit their already tested and archived nasopharyngeal samples and corresponding meta data. These were then re-tested at UVRI using the WHO Berlin protocol, the UVRI results were compared to those of the primary testing laboratories in order to ascertain performance agreement for the qualitative & quantitative results obtained. Ms Excel window 12 and GraphPad prism ver 15 was used in the analysis. Bar graphs, pie charts and line graphs were used to compare performance agreement between the reference Laboratory and primary testing Laboratories. Eleven (11) Ministry of Health/Uganda Virus Research Institute COVID19 accredited laboratories participated in the re-testing of quality control samples. 5/11 (45%) of the primary testing laboratories had 100% performance agreement with that of the National Reference Laboratory for the final test result. Even where there was concordance in the final test outcome (negative or positive) between UVRI and primary testing laboratories, there were still differences in CT values. The differences in the Cycle Threshold (CT) values were insignificant except for Tenna & Pharma Laboratory and the UVRI(p = 0.0296). The difference in the CT values were not skewed to either the National reference Laboratory(UVRI) or the primary testing laboratory but varied from one laboratory to another. In the remaining 6/11 (55%) laboratories where there were discrepancies in the aggregate test results, only samples initially tested and reported as positive by the primary laboratories were tested and found to be false positives by the UVRI COVID19 National Reference Laboratory. False positives were detected from public, private not for profit and private testing laboratories in almost equal proportion. There is need for standardization of molecular testing platforms in Uganda. There is also urgent need to improve on the Laboratory quality management systems of the molecular testing laboratories in order to minimize such discrepancies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Significant milestones have been made in the development of COVID19 diagnostics Technologies. Government of the republic of Uganda and the line Ministry of Health mandated Uganda Virus Research Institute to ensure quality of COVID19 diagnostics. Re-testing was one of the methods initiated by the UVRI to implement External Quality assessment of COVID19 molecular diagnostics.
METHOD
METHODS
participating laboratories were required by UVRI to submit their already tested and archived nasopharyngeal samples and corresponding meta data. These were then re-tested at UVRI using the WHO Berlin protocol, the UVRI results were compared to those of the primary testing laboratories in order to ascertain performance agreement for the qualitative & quantitative results obtained. Ms Excel window 12 and GraphPad prism ver 15 was used in the analysis. Bar graphs, pie charts and line graphs were used to compare performance agreement between the reference Laboratory and primary testing Laboratories.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Eleven (11) Ministry of Health/Uganda Virus Research Institute COVID19 accredited laboratories participated in the re-testing of quality control samples. 5/11 (45%) of the primary testing laboratories had 100% performance agreement with that of the National Reference Laboratory for the final test result. Even where there was concordance in the final test outcome (negative or positive) between UVRI and primary testing laboratories, there were still differences in CT values. The differences in the Cycle Threshold (CT) values were insignificant except for Tenna & Pharma Laboratory and the UVRI(p = 0.0296). The difference in the CT values were not skewed to either the National reference Laboratory(UVRI) or the primary testing laboratory but varied from one laboratory to another. In the remaining 6/11 (55%) laboratories where there were discrepancies in the aggregate test results, only samples initially tested and reported as positive by the primary laboratories were tested and found to be false positives by the UVRI COVID19 National Reference Laboratory.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
False positives were detected from public, private not for profit and private testing laboratories in almost equal proportion. There is need for standardization of molecular testing platforms in Uganda. There is also urgent need to improve on the Laboratory quality management systems of the molecular testing laboratories in order to minimize such discrepancies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38265993
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287272
pii: PONE-D-23-16243
pmc: PMC10807774
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0287272Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00027/5
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00033/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2024 Okek et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
No authors have any competing interest
Références
PLoS One. 2022 May 10;17(5):e0265334
pubmed: 35536792
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 May 07;8:615099
pubmed: 34026773
AAPS J. 2021 Jan 5;23(1):14
pubmed: 33400058
Sci Total Environ. 2022 Jan 20;805:149877
pubmed: 34818780
Arch Med Res. 2020 Oct;51(7):623-630
pubmed: 32948378
J Viral Hepat. 2015 Apr;22(4):353-61
pubmed: 25367722
Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Nov;112:281-287
pubmed: 34536612
J Pharm Anal. 2020 Apr;10(2):97-101
pubmed: 32292623
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 May 18;72(10):e685-e686
pubmed: 32785682
J Immunol Methods. 2014 Jul;409:91-8
pubmed: 24120573
Biosaf Health. 2020 Dec;2(4):232-237
pubmed: 32838286
Psychiatr Genet. 2002 Sep;12(3):133-6
pubmed: 12218656
N Biotechnol. 2022 Sep 25;70:19-27
pubmed: 35398581