Skip to main content
ARS Home » Southeast Area » Athens, Georgia » U.S. National Poultry Research Center » Exotic & Emerging Avian Viral Diseases Research » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #295242
Title: Are we detecting what we think we are? CEIRS QA/QC testing results

Author
item Spackman, Erica
item CARDONA, CAROL - University Of Minnesota
item MUNOZ-AGUAYO, JEANETTE - University Of Minnesota
item FLEMING, SUSAN - University Of Minnesota

Submitted to: Meeting Abstract
Publication Type: Abstract Only
Publication Acceptance Date: 7/1/2013
Publication Date: N/A
Citation: N/A

Interpretive Summary:

Technical Abstract: Quality assurance and control (QA/QC) testing was implemented during year 6 of the centers for excellence in influenza research and surveillance (CEIRS) program to evaluate molecular detection of influenza and serological detection of influenza antibodies in labs which conduct animal surveillance. As of July 2013 three testing cycles have been completed. During each cycle a panel of reagents for labs testing avian samples by molecular methods, a panel for labs testing mammalian samples and a serology panel were offered. Over the course of the first 3 testing cycles, 37 labs from 4 of the 5 CEIRS centers requested material, 31 labs completed and returned results and 14 labs completed more than one cycle of testing. Although most labs were able to successfully detect type A influenza or antibody to influenza, the most common error were false negatives with all three panels (79%-95% of all errors depending on the panel). Also there were two areas where there were common problems. First, subtype identification was highly inaccurate for the avian panel where the subtype was only identified correctly for 47% of the samples when attempted. False negatives were the most common subtype identification error, however mis-identification occurred frequently as well. Second, data integrity was inconsistent. Missing or incorrectly recorded data was observed with individual results from numerous labs. Finally a positive outcome of the QA/QC testing is that four labs reported that they modified their procedures based on the results of the QA/QC testing, two of those labs have completed testing after the update and improved their results.