OBJECTIVES: External quality assessment (EQA) schemes provide information on individual and general analytical performance of participating laboratories and test systems. The aim of this study was to investigate the use and performance of SARS-CoV-2 virus genome detection systems in Austrian laboratories and their preparedness to face challenges associated with the pandemic. METHODS: Seven samples were selected to evaluate performance and estimate variability of reported results. Notably, a dilution series was included in the panel as a measure of reproducibility and sensitivity. Several performance criteria were evaluated for individual participants as well as in the cohort of all participants. RESULTS: A total of 109 laboratories participated and used 134 platforms, including 67 different combinations of extraction and PCR platforms and corresponding reagents. There were no false positives and 10 (1.2%) false negative results, including nine in the weakly positive sample (C t ∼35.9, ∼640 copies/mL). Twenty (22%) laboratories reported results of mutation detection. Twenty-five (19%) test systems included amplification of human RNA as evidence of proper sampling. The overall linearity of C t values from individual test systems for the dilution series was good, but inter-assay variability was high. Both operator-related and systematic failures appear to have caused incorrect results. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond providing certification for participating laboratories, EQA provides the opportunity for participants to evaluate their performance against others so that they may improve operating procedures and test systems. Well-selected EQA samples offer additional inferences to be made about assay sensitivity and reproducibility, which have practical applications.
OBJECTIVES: External quality assessment (EQA) schemes provide information on individual and general analytical performance of participating laboratories and test systems. The aim of this study was to investigate the use and performance of SARS-CoV-2 virus genome detection systems in Austrian laboratories and their preparedness to face challenges associated with the pandemic. METHODS: Seven samples were selected to evaluate performance and estimate variability of reported results. Notably, a dilution series was included in the panel as a measure of reproducibility and sensitivity. Several performance criteria were evaluated for individual participants as well as in the cohort of all participants. RESULTS: A total of 109 laboratories participated and used 134 platforms, including 67 different combinations of extraction and PCR platforms and corresponding reagents. There were no false positives and 10 (1.2%) false negative results, including nine in the weakly positive sample (C t ∼35.9, ∼640 copies/mL). Twenty (22%) laboratories reported results of mutation detection. Twenty-five (19%) test systems included amplification of human RNA as evidence of proper sampling. The overall linearity of C t values from individual test systems for the dilution series was good, but inter-assay variability was high. Both operator-related and systematic failures appear to have caused incorrect results. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond providing certification for participating laboratories, EQA provides the opportunity for participants to evaluate their performance against others so that they may improve operating procedures and test systems. Well-selected EQA samples offer additional inferences to be made about assay sensitivity and reproducibility, which have practical applications.