2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2013.03.027
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative assay of fluorescent antibody test results among twelve European National Reference Laboratories using various anti-rabies conjugates

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
16
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
16
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The questionnaire revealed several technical variations particularly in the application of the DFA test protocol. Although studies reporting that outcomes of the DFA test can be significantly affected by various factors such as the fluorescent conjugate [28], the cover glass mounting medium and its associated pH [44], and also, the microscope and type of filters in used [45], we did not observe any influence of technical steps for both DFA test and RT-PCR, very likely due the low number of discordant results. Information regarding the maintenance of equipment, the type of fluorescent microscope and filters in use were not collected during this PT.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 67%
“…The questionnaire revealed several technical variations particularly in the application of the DFA test protocol. Although studies reporting that outcomes of the DFA test can be significantly affected by various factors such as the fluorescent conjugate [28], the cover glass mounting medium and its associated pH [44], and also, the microscope and type of filters in used [45], we did not observe any influence of technical steps for both DFA test and RT-PCR, very likely due the low number of discordant results. Information regarding the maintenance of equipment, the type of fluorescent microscope and filters in use were not collected during this PT.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 67%
“…[40] and S h a r m a et al [33], gave 17 % and 64.7 % positive results respectively by RIDT on fresh samples. Generally, the accuracy of rabies diagnosis is dependent on the quality of the sample [13,6], the type of anti-rabies conjugate used [31], virus antigen distributions in the brain and areas of the brain tested [4].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While no significant associations were seen between differences in survey responses and laboratory performance, this may be due to the small sample size, as even small methodological changes have been shown to affect the sensitivity of the DFA test including the mounting medium [1617], laboratorian’s expertise level, number of employees reading the slides, the anti-rabies conjugate utilized, specificity controls used and working performance of fluorescence microscope [18, 19]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the current exercise, laboratories used commercial (65%) or in-house (35%) conjugates. A study of 12 rabies reference laboratories in Europe demonstrated that the variability of conjugates could potentially lead to discordant results and influence assay sensitivity [19]. The OIE manual states that the conjugates should be fully validated for specificity and sensitivity before use, including their ability to detect lyssaviruses other than rabies [3]; it is unclear whether such validation has been completed for the in-house conjugates used in the LAC region.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%