OBJECTIVE: To assure the quality of the laboratory diagnosis of Buruli ulcer disease; microscopy and PCR were subjected to external quality assurance (EQA). METHODS: Slides were read by test laboratory staff, followed by blinded re-reading by the controller. Parallel testing of PCR specimens was carried out at the local and external reference laboratory. Slides and PCR specimens with discordant results were subjected to a second reading/testing by the controller to determine the final result. For training purposes, slides and PCR specimens with discrepant results were subsequently re-read/re-tested under supervision at the test laboratory. RESULTS: Microscopy. First reading: concordance rate 82.9%, discordance rate 17.1%, percentage false negatives 27.1% (sensitivity 72.9%), percentage false positives 10.1% (specificity 89.9%). Second reading: concordance rate 97.9%, discordance rate 2.1%, percentage false negatives 4.2% (sensitivity 95.8%), percentage false positives 0.6% (specificity 99.4%). PCR. First testing: concordance rate 87.9%, discordance rate 12.1%, percentage false negatives 8.2% (sensitivity 91.8%), percentage false positives 19.1% (specificity 80.9%). Second testing: concordance rate 96.2%, discordance rate 3.8%, percentage false negatives 4.7% (sensitivity 95.3%), percentage false-positives 2.1% (specificity 97.9%). CONCLUSIONS: EQA identified deficiencies in the laboratory performance. Corrective action consisted in on-site training and reduced the number of false-negative and false-positive microscopy and PCR results.
OBJECTIVE: To assure the quality of the laboratory diagnosis of Buruli ulcer disease; microscopy and PCR were subjected to external quality assurance (EQA). METHODS: Slides were read by test laboratory staff, followed by blinded re-reading by the controller. Parallel testing of PCR specimens was carried out at the local and external reference laboratory. Slides and PCR specimens with discordant results were subjected to a second reading/testing by the controller to determine the final result. For training purposes, slides and PCR specimens with discrepant results were subsequently re-read/re-tested under supervision at the test laboratory. RESULTS: Microscopy. First reading: concordance rate 82.9%, discordance rate 17.1%, percentage false negatives 27.1% (sensitivity 72.9%), percentage false positives 10.1% (specificity 89.9%). Second reading: concordance rate 97.9%, discordance rate 2.1%, percentage false negatives 4.2% (sensitivity 95.8%), percentage false positives 0.6% (specificity 99.4%). PCR. First testing: concordance rate 87.9%, discordance rate 12.1%, percentage false negatives 8.2% (sensitivity 91.8%), percentage false positives 19.1% (specificity 80.9%). Second testing: concordance rate 96.2%, discordance rate 3.8%, percentage false negatives 4.7% (sensitivity 95.3%), percentage false-positives 2.1% (specificity 97.9%). CONCLUSIONS: EQA identified deficiencies in the laboratory performance. Corrective action consisted in on-site training and reduced the number of false-negative and false-positive microscopy and PCR results.
Authors: Marcus Beissner; Nana-Yaa Awua-Boateng; William Thompson; Willemien A Nienhuis; Erasmus Klutse; Pius Agbenorku; Joerg Nitschke; Karl-Heinz Herbinger; Vera Siegmund; Erna Fleischmann; Ohene Adjei; Bernhard Fleischer; Tjip S van der Werf; Thomas Loscher; Gisela Bretzel Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Sacha J Pidot; Jessica L Porter; Laurent Marsollier; Annick Chauty; Florence Migot-Nabias; Cyril Badaut; Angèle Bénard; Marie-Therese Ruf; Torsten Seemann; Paul D R Johnson; John K Davies; Grant A Jenkin; Gerd Pluschke; Timothy P Stinear Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2010-11-02
Authors: Richard K Amewu; Gideon Atinga Akolgo; Millicent Esi Asare; Zigli Abdulai; Anthony S Ablordey; Kingsley Asiedu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-08-02 Impact factor: 3.752