Ebola laboratory tests
|
Ebola Microchapters |
|
Diagnosis |
|---|
|
Treatment |
|
Postmortem Care |
|
Case Studies |
|
Ebola laboratory tests On the Web |
|
American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Ebola laboratory tests |
|
Risk calculators and risk factors for Ebola laboratory tests |
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Joseph Nasr, M.D.[2] Michael Maddaleni, B.S.; Guillermo Rodriguez Nava, M.D. [3]; Rim Halaby, M.D. [4]
Overview
Several diagnostic tests are available for detection of Ebola virus disease (EVD). The current gold standard for laboratory confirmation of acute EVD is quantitative real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR), preferably targeting two distinct genome locations to minimize false negative results due to evolving genome mutations.[1] The Cepheid GeneXpert Ebola assay, a rapid and fully automated qRT-PCR targeting the NP and GP genes, has become a preferred field-deployable molecular diagnostic platform and was used extensively during the DRC 2018–2020 outbreak, processing more than 250,000 samples across 13 field laboratories.[2] Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) detecting viral antigens have been developed for point-of-care use but currently do not meet the WHO target product profile sensitivity threshold of ≥98% and cannot be used to rule out EVD.[3]
Ebola infection is associated with nonspecific laboratory abnormalities including alterations in the white blood cell count, blood chemistry tests, electrolytes, renal function, liver function tests, inflammatory biomarkers, and coagulation parameters. High viral load (low RT-PCR cycle threshold [Ct] value), severe acute kidney injury, elevated blood urea nitrogen, abnormal potassium, low albumin, elevated C-reactive protein, and markedly elevated aspartate aminotransferase (AST) have been associated with increased mortality across outbreak cohorts.[4][5][6]
Indications for Laboratory Testing
CDC recommends testing for all persons with onset of fever within 21 days of having a high-risk exposure such as:[7]
- Percutaneous or mucous membrane exposure or direct skin contact with body fluids of a person with a confirmed or suspected case of EVD without appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE)*
- Laboratory processing of body fluids of suspected or confirmed EVD cases without appropriate PPE or standard biosafety precautions*
- Participation in funeral rites or other direct exposure to human remains in the geographic area where the outbreak is occurring without appropriate PPE*
For persons with a high-risk exposure but without a fever, testing is recommended only if there are other compatible clinical symptoms present and blood work findings are abnormal, including thrombocytopenia <150,000 cells/µL and/or elevated transaminases.
The CDC Yellow Book emphasizes that decisions about testing for viral special pathogens, including Ebola virus, should be managed by the state, tribal, local, or territorial (STLT) public health department in coordination with the clinical team and CDC. For many pathogens, testing is only available at CDC or select laboratories within the Laboratory Response Network.[8]
Diagnostic Tests
Gold Standard: Quantitative Real-Time RT-PCR (qRT-PCR)
The most widely used technique to diagnose acute EVD is qRT-PCR, preferably targeting two distinct genome locations to minimize false negative results due to evolving genome mutations. Key considerations include:
- When patients with EVD present at a hospital, typically 3–6 days after the onset of symptoms, the viral load is already high and detectable in the patient's blood by RT-PCR in the vast majority of cases.[9]*
- A single negative RT-PCR finding early after onset does not exclude EVD; testing should be repeated over a period of 72 hours if clinical suspicion persists.*
- Viral load peaks 3–7 days after the onset of symptoms. In fatal cases, viremia is usually 10–100 fold higher than in survivors.*
- In survivors, viremia decreases to below the limit of RT-PCR detection, approximately 1000 virus RNA copies per mL of blood, around 2–3 weeks after disease onset.*
- The median time from the onset of illness to the first negative RT-PCR assay result for EBOV RNA in a blood specimen was 17.5 days in a cohort of patients managed in the United States and Europe.[10]*
Cepheid GeneXpert Ebola Assay
The Cepheid GeneXpert Ebola assay is a rapid, fully automated qRT-PCR system that targets the glycoprotein (GP) and nucleoprotein (NP) genes of Ebola virus and yields results within approximately 90 minutes.[11] A pooled meta-analysis demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.98 (95% CI 0.95–0.99) and specificity of 0.98 (95% CI 0.97–0.99) compared with conventional RT-PCR, with an area under the SROC curve of 0.9961.[12]
Key advantages of the GeneXpert platform include:
- Fully automated sample-to-answer workflow requiring minimal hands-on time and technical expertise*
- Closed cartridge system that reduces biosafety risk during specimen handling*
- Rapid turnaround time of approximately 90 minutes*
- Dual-target design (NP and GP genes) that reduces the risk of false negatives from genome mutations*
- Deployable in field laboratory settings without the need for BSL-4 containment*
During the DRC 10th outbreak (2018–2020), the GeneXpert Ebola assay was used as the primary diagnostic tool across 13 field laboratories, processing more than 250,000 samples. Three rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) were also deployed alongside GeneXpert for triage purposes. In a retrospective multicentre observational study of 16,636 samples, the OraQuick Ebola RDT had a sensitivity of 85.7%, the SD Q Line RDT had a sensitivity of 78.3%, and the QuickNavi-Ebola RDT had a sensitivity of 68.0%, all compared with GeneXpert as the reference standard.[2]
Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs)
Several antigen-detecting RDTs have been developed for point-of-care use in field settings. A head-to-head prospective comparison of four RDTs versus GeneXpert during the DRC outbreaks (2018–2022) evaluated 1,067 samples and found the following diagnostic performance:[3]
| RDT | Sensitivity | Specificity | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| OraQuick Ebola Rapid Antigen Test | 85.0% | 97.9% | WHO Emergency Use Listed; fingerstick or venous blood |
| SD Q Line Ebola Zaire Ag | 81.3% | 98.2% | Venous blood only |
| QuickNavi-Ebola | 71.3% | 99.5% | Venous blood only |
| GenBody Ebola Ag | 62.5% | 99.1% | Venous blood only |
Table adapted from Mukadi-Bamuleka et al., EBioMedicine 2023.[3]
None of the currently available RDTs meet the WHO target product profile sensitivity threshold of ≥98%. Therefore, RDTs cannot be used to rule out EVD and a negative RDT result must always be confirmed by qRT-PCR. However, a positive RDT result in a symptomatic patient with epidemiologic risk factors has high positive predictive value and can be used to initiate immediate isolation and clinical management while awaiting confirmatory RT-PCR.
Emerging Molecular Point-of-Care Tests
Several molecular point-of-care platforms have been developed to improve EVD diagnosis in low-resource or field settings. These assays are promising but should be distinguished from guideline-established frontline molecular platforms such as qRT-PCR and GeneXpert.
Reverse Transcription Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (RT-LAMP)
RT-LAMP is an isothermal nucleic acid amplification method that can detect Ebola virus RNA without conventional thermal cycling. RT-LAMP assays have shown promising performance in field and validation studies and may provide rapid testing in low-resource settings.[13][14][15]
Reverse Transcription Recombinase-Aided Amplification (RT-RAA)
RT-RAA is another isothermal molecular method that can amplify viral RNA rapidly at a constant temperature. Recent data suggest high analytical performance and promising clinical accuracy in archived samples, but RT-RAA remains an emerging diagnostic platform rather than a widely adopted frontline standard.[16]
Investigational Ultrasensitive Antigen Platforms
Newer ultrasensitive antigen platforms are being developed to improve early EVD detection. The EBOV D4 assay, which detects secreted Ebola virus glycoprotein (sGP), showed markedly improved analytical sensitivity compared with currently cleared lateral-flow RDTs in preclinical work and detected infection earlier than PCR in experimental models. These assays remain investigational and are not routine clinical standard-of-care.[17]
Serologic Testing
Serologic testing for IgM and IgG antibodies is completed for certain specimens and is performed to monitor the immune response in confirmed EVD patients.
| Timeline of Infection | Diagnostic Tests Available |
|---|---|
| Within a few days after symptoms begin | |
| Later in disease course or after recovery | |
| Retrospectively in deceased patients |
|
Viral Persistence in Immune-Privileged Sites
An important update since 2020 is the recognition that Ebola virus RNA and, in some cases, replication-competent virus can persist in immune-privileged body sites long after clearance from blood. Key findings include:
- Semen: Ebola virus RNA has been detected in semen for up to 40 months after acute illness. Viable virus has been isolated from semen up to 82 days after symptom onset. Sexual transmission from male survivors has been documented.*
- Aqueous humor: Ebola virus has been detected in the aqueous humor of survivors presenting with uveitis.*
- Breast milk: Viral RNA has been detected in breast milk of recovering patients.*
- Cerebrospinal fluid: Ebola virus RNA has been detected in the CSF of patients with meningoencephalitis during relapse.*
These findings have important implications for discharge criteria, survivor counseling, and public health follow-up. The WHO recommends that male EVD survivors have semen tested at 3 months after disease onset and then monthly thereafter until two consecutive negative RT-PCR results are obtained.
Laboratory Findings
The table below displays the nonspecific laboratory abnormalities associated with Ebola infection:[18]
| Test | Findings | Prognostic Significance |
|---|---|---|
| White blood cell count | Leukopenia with lymphopenia (early); Neutrophilia (late) | Marked leukocytosis (>15 × 109/L) associated with poor prognosis |
| Blood smear | Left shift; Atypical lymphocytes | — |
| Hemostasis and Coagulation | Thrombocytopenia; Consumption of clotting factors; Increased concentrations of fibrin degradation products; Elevated D-dimer | Thrombocytopenia <100,000/µL associated with increased mortality |
| Liver function tests | Elevated aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels; Elevated gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) and bilirubin levels; Prolonged prothrombin time (PT) or international normalized ratio (INR); Prolonged partial thromboplastin time (PTT) | AST >2000 U/L is an independent predictor of mortality; AST typically elevated more than ALT |
| Renal function tests | Elevated serum creatinine level; Elevated blood urea nitrogen (BUN) | Acute kidney injury, creatinine >1.5 mg/dL, and elevated BUN are associated with increased case fatality |
| Electrolytes | Hypokalemia; Hypocalcemia; Hyponatremia; Hypomagnesemia; abnormal potassium | Severe electrolyte derangements contribute to cardiac arrhythmia risk; potassium abnormalities may improve mortality prediction when assessed serially |
| Proteins | Hypoalbuminemia; Hyperproteinemia (early) | Hypoalbuminemia reflects capillary leak and is associated with poor prognosis |
| Inflammatory markers | Elevated C-reactive protein (CRP); Elevated ferritin; Elevated cytokines (IL-6, TNF-α, IL-1β, MIP-1α) | Cytokine storm pattern correlates with disease severity and fatal outcome; serial CRP may improve mortality prediction |
| Creatine kinase | Elevated CK or CPK | Suggests myositis, rhabdomyolysis, or severe systemic injury |
| Urinalysis | Hematuria; Proteinuria | — |
| Viral load (RT-PCR Ct value) | Detectable from day 3 of symptoms; peaks days 3–7 | Low Ct value (high viral load) is the strongest independent predictor of mortality |
| Amylase and Lipase | May be elevated | Suggests pancreatitis, reported in some EVD cases |
Laboratory Predictors of Mortality
Data from the PALM randomized controlled trial (2019), multiple observational cohorts, and newer point-of-care biomarker studies have identified the following laboratory parameters as predictors of mortality in EVD:[5][4][6]
- High viral load (low RT-PCR Ct value): The strongest predictor of death. In the PALM trial, 28-day mortality was 67.0% among patients with Ct ≤22 at baseline versus 18.9% among those with Ct >22.*
- Elevated AST (>2000 U/L): Reflects severe hepatocellular injury and disseminated intravascular coagulation.*
- Elevated creatinine (>1.5 mg/dL): Reflects acute kidney injury, often multifactorial, including hypovolemia, direct viral injury, and rhabdomyolysis.*
- Elevated blood urea nitrogen: Reflects renal dysfunction, dehydration, catabolic stress, or severe systemic illness.*
- Abnormal potassium: May reflect severe gastrointestinal losses, renal dysfunction, acidosis, or treatment-related correction needs.*
- Low albumin: May reflect capillary leak, severe inflammation, impaired hepatic synthetic function, or poor nutritional reserve.*
- Elevated C-reactive protein: May reflect severe systemic inflammation and has been incorporated into newer prognostic models.*
- Severe thrombocytopenia (<100,000/µL): Reflects consumptive coagulopathy.*
Serial biomarker assessment may improve mortality prediction compared with single time-point measurement, particularly in settings where repeated point-of-care laboratory testing is available.[6]
Routine Laboratory Testing in Suspected Ebola Virus Disease
Routine laboratory testing should not be deferred when clinically necessary for patient care. Instead, laboratories should use a site-specific and activity-specific risk assessment to determine appropriate engineering controls, PPE, specimen-handling procedures, and waste-management protocols.[8][19]
Key principles include:
- Routine supportive testing, including complete blood count, electrolytes, renal function, liver function tests, coagulation studies, glucose, and blood gas testing when indicated, should be performed when needed for clinical management.*
- Closed-tube systems are preferred for chemistry and hematology platforms.*
- If centrifugation is required, laboratories should use sealed rotors or sealed buckets and should load and open these devices in a biosafety cabinet.*
- Point-of-care devices may reduce specimen transport and handling risks when used in a dedicated space with appropriate biosafety controls.*
- Malaria testing should be performed urgently in febrile travelers or outbreak settings where malaria is plausible; same-day blood smears and/or rapid malaria testing should be prioritized.*
- Laboratory personnel should be notified before specimens from suspected EVD patients are transported or processed.*
Laboratory Biosafety Considerations
Laboratory exposures can occur when specimens are processed before EVD is recognized, when biosafety procedures are inadequate, or when mobile field laboratories operate under outbreak conditions without full high-containment infrastructure. Laboratory workers should be included in occupational risk assessments, monitoring plans, and post-exposure management pathways when handling specimens from patients with suspected or confirmed EVD.[20]
Laboratory safety measures should follow the hierarchy of controls:
- Minimize specimen manipulation whenever possible.*
- Use closed-tube platforms and sealed centrifuge systems.*
- Use certified biosafety cabinets for procedures with splash, aerosol, or droplet risk.*
- Use dedicated point-of-care devices when feasible.*
- Maintain clear protocols for specimen collection, labeling, packaging, transport, testing, decontamination, waste disposal, and exposure response.*
- Ensure staff education, drills, and competency assessment for high-consequence infectious disease workflows.*
U.S. Laboratory Preparedness Standards
Updated U.S. laboratory preparedness expectations for high-consequence infectious diseases emphasize written protocols, staff training, competency assessment, and coordinated procedures for specimen collection, labeling, handling, packaging, transport, testing, waste disposal, cleaning, disinfection, PPE, and donning and doffing.[21] These standards are relevant to facilities that may evaluate suspected viral special pathogen infections, including EVD, because delayed recognition or inconsistent laboratory workflows can create occupational exposure risk.
Guidance for Specimen Collection, Transport, Testing, and Submission in the United States
Specimen Handling for Routine Laboratory Testing (not for Ebola Diagnosis)
Routine laboratory testing includes traditional chemistry, hematology, and other laboratory testing used to support and treat patients. Recommendations to offer appropriate protection for healthcare personnel performing laboratory testing on specimens from patients with suspected infection with Ebola virus are:
- Risk assessment: Risk assessments should be conducted by each laboratory director, biosafety officer, or other responsible personnel to determine the potential for sprays, splashes, or aerosols generated from laboratory procedures. They should adjust, as needed, PPE requirements, practices, and safety equipment controls to protect the laboratorian's skin, eyes, and mucous membranes.*
- Specimen collection: Any person collecting specimens from a patient with a case of suspected EVD should wear gloves, water-resistant gowns, full face shield or goggles, and masks to cover all of nose and mouth. Additional PPE may be required in certain situations.*
- Laboratory testing: Any person testing specimens from a patient with a suspected case of EVD should wear gloves, water-resistant gowns, full face shield or goggles, and masks to cover all of nose and mouth, and as an added precaution use a certified class II biosafety cabinet or Plexiglass splash guard with PPE to protect skin and mucous membranes. All manufacturer-installed safety features for laboratory instruments should be used.*
- Point-of-care testing: Where available, point-of-care analyzers, such as i-STAT or Piccolo, should be used for routine chemistry and blood gas analysis to minimize specimen handling and transport. These devices were used successfully in the management of EVD patients in the United States and Europe.*
Management of Laboratory Waste
Waste generated during laboratory testing should be placed in leak-proof containment and discarded as regulated medical waste. To minimize contamination of the exterior of the waste bag, place this bag in a rigid waste container designed for this use. If available, steam sterilization (autoclave) or incineration as a waste treatment process can inactivate the virus and reduce waste volume. For equipment that drains directly into the sewer system, the United States sanitary sewer system handling processes, including anaerobic digestion, composting, and disinfection, are designed to safely inactivate infectious agents. However, check with the state's regulated medical waste program for more guidance and coordinate waste-management activities for the laboratory area with the medical waste contractor.
Transporting Specimens within the Hospital / Institution
Specimens should be placed in a durable, leak-proof secondary container for transport within a facility. To reduce the risk of breakage or leaks, do not use any pneumatic tube system for transporting suspected EVD specimens.
When Specimens Should Be Collected for Ebola Testing
Ebola virus is detected in blood only after the onset of symptoms, usually fever. It may take up to 3 days after symptoms appear for the virus to reach detectable levels. Virus is generally detectable by real-time RT-PCR from 3–10 days after symptoms appear.
Specimens ideally should be taken when a symptomatic patient reports to a healthcare facility and is suspected of having an Ebola exposure. However, if the onset of symptoms is less than 3 days, a later specimen may be needed to completely rule out Ebola virus, if the first specimen tests negative.
Preferred Specimens for Ebola Testing
A minimum volume of 4 mL whole blood in plastic collection tubes can be used to submit specimens for testing for Ebola virus. Do not submit specimens in glass containers or in heparinized tubes. Whole blood preserved with EDTA is preferred but whole blood preserved with sodium polyanethol sulfonate (SPS), citrate, or with clot activator is acceptable. It is not necessary to separate and remove serum or plasma from the primary collection container. Specimens should be immediately stored or transported at 2–8°C or frozen on cold-packs. Specimens other than blood may be submitted upon consult with the CDC by calling the Emergency Operations Center at 770-488-7100.
Standard labeling should be applied for each specimen. The requested test only needs to be identified on the requisition and CDC specimen submission forms.
Storing Clinical Specimens for Ebola Testing
Short-term storage of specimens prior to shipping should be at 4°C or frozen.
Diagnostic Testing for Ebola Performed at CDC
Several diagnostic tests are available for detection of EVD. Acute infections will be confirmed using a real-time RT-PCR assay (CDC test directory code CDC-10309 Ebola Identification) in a CLIA-certified laboratory. Virus isolation may also be attempted. Serologic testing for IgM and IgG antibodies will be completed for certain specimens and to monitor the immune response in confirmed EVD patients.
Lassa fever is also endemic in certain areas of West Africa and may show symptoms similar to early EVD. Diagnostic tests available at CDC include but are not limited to RT-PCR, antigen detection, and IgM serology, all of which may be utilized to rule out Lassa fever in EVD-negative patients.
Packaging and Shipping Clinical Specimens
Specimens collected for EVD testing should be packaged and shipped without attempting to open collection tubes or aliquot specimens. The Ebola virus is classified as a Category A infectious substance by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and must be packaged and transported in accordance with the DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR, 49 CFR 171–180).
Differential Diagnosis of Ebola Virus Disease
The early clinical presentation of EVD is nonspecific and overlaps with many other infectious diseases. Parallel evaluation for alternative diagnoses should not be delayed while EVD testing is arranged. The following conditions should be considered in the differential diagnosis, particularly in patients with relevant travel history:[8][9]
| Category | Differential Diagnoses | Key Distinguishing Features |
|---|---|---|
| Other Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers | Marburg virus disease; Lassa fever; Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever; Rift Valley fever; Yellow fever; Dengue hemorrhagic fever | Geographic exposure; specific RT-PCR testing required for differentiation |
| Malaria | Plasmodium falciparum malaria | Most important immediately treatable mimic; rapid diagnostic test and blood smear should be performed on all suspected EVD cases; co-infection with EVD is possible |
| Bacterial Infections | Typhoid fever; Meningococcemia; Gram-negative sepsis; Leptospirosis; Rickettsiosis | Blood cultures; specific serologic or molecular testing depending on syndrome and geography |
| Viral Infections | Influenza; Measles; Viral hepatitis; HIV acute seroconversion | Specific viral testing |
| Parasitic Infections | Malaria; Trypanosomiasis | Thick and thin blood smear; rapid malaria antigen test; geography-dependent testing |
Note: Malaria co-testing is essential in all suspected EVD cases, as co-infection is possible and malaria is a treatable cause of fever in endemic areas.
References
- ↑ Feldmann H, Sprecher A, Geisbert TW (2020). "Ebola". N Engl J Med. 382 (19): 1832–1842. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1901594. PMID 32286632 Check
|pmid=value (help). - ↑ 2.0 2.1 Mukadi-Bamuleka D, Bulabula-Penge J, De Weggheleire A, Jacobs B, Edidi-Atani F, Phoba MF, Mbala-Kingebeni P, Muyembe-Tamfum JJ, Ahuka-Mundeke S, Ariën KK, van Griensven J (2022). "Field Performance of Three Ebola Rapid Diagnostic Tests Used During the 2018-20 Outbreak in the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo: A Retrospective, Multicentre Observational Study". Lancet Infect Dis. 22 (6): 891–900. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00675-7. PMID 35298901 Check
|pmid=value (help). Vancouver style error: initials (help) - ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Mukadi-Bamuleka D, Bulabula-Penge J, Jacobs B, Edidi-Atani F, Phoba MF, Mbala-Kingebeni P, Muyembe-Tamfum JJ, Ahuka-Mundeke S, Ariën KK, van Griensven J (2023). "Head-to-Head Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of Four Ebola Virus Disease Rapid Diagnostic Tests Versus GeneXpert in Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo Outbreaks: A Prospective Observational Study". EBioMedicine. 91: 104568. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104568. PMID 37084479 Check
|pmid=value (help). Vancouver style error: initials (help) - ↑ 4.0 4.1 Hunt L, Gupta-Wright A, Simms V, Tamba F, Knott V, Tamba K, Heisenberg-Mansaray S, Tamba E, Sheriff A, Conteh S, Smith T, Tobin S, Brooks T, Houlihan C, Cummings R, Fletcher T (2015). "Clinical Presentation, Biochemical, and Haematological Parameters and Their Association With Outcome in Patients With Ebola Virus Disease: An Observational Cohort Study". Lancet Infect Dis. 15 (11): 1292–1299. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00144-9. PMID 26271406.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Mulangu S, Dodd LE, Davey RT, Tshiani Mbaya O, Proschan M, Mukadi D, Lusakibanza Manzo M, Nzolo D, Tshomba Oloma A, Ibanda A, Ali R, Coulibaly S, Levine AC, Grais R, Diaz J, Lane HC, Muyembe-Tamfum JJ (2019). "A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ebola Virus Disease Therapeutics". N Engl J Med. 381 (24): 2293–2303. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1910993. PMID 31774950.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Bearnot CJ, Mbong EN, Muhayangabo RF, et al. (2024). "Derivation and Internal Validation of a Mortality Prognostication Machine Learning Model in Ebola Virus Disease Based on Iterative Point-of-Care Biomarkers". Open Forum Infect Dis. 11 (2): ofad689. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofad689. PMID 38281162 Check
|pmid=value (help). - ↑ "Diagnosis of Ebola Virus Disease". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Retrieved May 27 2026. Check date values in:
|accessdate=(help) - ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 "Post-Travel Evaluation to Rule Out Viral Special Pathogen Infection". CDC Yellow Book. April 23 2025. Retrieved May 27 2026. Check date values in:
|accessdate=, |date=(help) - ↑ 9.0 9.1 Malvy D, McElroy AK, de Clerck H, Günther S, van Griensven J (2019). "Ebola Virus Disease". Lancet. 393 (10174): 936–948. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)33132-5. PMID 30777297.
- ↑ Uyeki TM, Mehta AK, Davey RT, Liddell AM, Wolf T, Vetter P, Schmiedel S, Grünewald T, Jacobs M, Arribas JR, Hewlett AL, Brantsæter AB, Ippolito G, Rapp C, Hoepelman AI, Gutman J (2016). "Clinical Management of Ebola Virus Disease in the United States and Europe". N Engl J Med. 374 (7): 636–646. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1504874. PMID 26867576.
- ↑ Jansen van Vuren P, Grobbelaar A, Storm N, Conteh O, Konneh K, Kamara A, Sanneh B, Di Caro A, Weyer J, Paweska JT (2016). "Comparative Evaluation of the Diagnostic Performance of the Prototype Cepheid GeneXpert Ebola Assay". J Clin Microbiol. 54 (2): 359–367. doi:10.1128/JCM.02724-15. PMID 26637383.
- ↑ Pan ZY, Wu YJ, Zeng YX (2021). "Pooled Analysis of the Accuracy of Xpert Ebola Assay for Diagnosing Ebola Virus Infection". Biomed Res Int. 2021: 5527505. doi:10.1155/2021/5527505. PMID 33505522 Check
|pmid=value (help). - ↑ Benzine JW, Brown KM, Agans KN, et al. (2016). "Molecular Diagnostic Field Test for Point-of-Care Detection of Ebola Virus Directly From Blood". J Infect Dis. 214 (suppl 3): S234–S242. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiw330. PMID 27587639.
- ↑ Kurosaki Y, Magassouba N, Oloniniyi OK, et al. (2016). "Development and Evaluation of Reverse Transcription-Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Assay Coupled With a Portable Device for Rapid Diagnosis of Ebola Virus Disease in Guinea". PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 10 (2): e0004472. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0004472. PMID 26900936.
- ↑ Kumar JS, Dash PK, Srivastava A, et al. (2021). "One-Step Single-Tube Accelerated Quantitative Nucleoprotein Gene-Specific Reverse Transcription Loop-Mediated Isothermal Gene Amplification Assay for Rapid, Real-Time and Reliable Clinical Detection of Ebola Virus". Indian J Med Res. 154 (4): 598–606. doi:10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_864_19. PMID 34854445 Check
|pmid=value (help). - ↑ Ceruti A, Faye M, Diagne MM, et al. (2024). "Rapid Detection of Ebolavirus Using Isothermal Recombinase-Aided Amplification". J Med Virol. 96 (6): e29744. doi:10.1002/jmv.29744. PMID 38899274 Check
|pmid=value (help). - ↑ Fontes CM, Lipes BD, Liu J, et al. (2021). "Ultrasensitive Point-of-Care Immunoassay for Secreted Glycoprotein Detects Ebola Infection Earlier Than PCR". Sci Transl Med. 13 (588): eabd9696. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.abd9696. PMID 33958410 Check
|pmid=value (help). - ↑ Feldmann H, Geisbert TW (2011). "Ebola haemorrhagic fever". Lancet. 377 (9768): 849–862. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60667-8. PMC 3406178. PMID 21084112.
- ↑ Turbett SE, Lazarus JE, Nardini MA, et al. (2024). "Enabling Laboratory Readiness and Preparedness for the Evaluation of Suspected Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers: Development of a Laboratory Toolkit". Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 45 (9): 1043–1049. doi:10.1017/ice.2024.143. PMID 39390886 Check
|pmid=value (help). - ↑ Moso MA, Lim CK, Williams E, Patel S, Bull RA, Williamson DA (2024). "Prevention and Post-Exposure Management of Occupational Exposure to Ebola Virus". Lancet Infect Dis. 24 (2): e93–e105. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(23)00376-6. PMID 37722397 Check
|pmid=value (help). - ↑ "R3 Report Issue 50: New and Revised Requirements for Infection Prevention and Control for Laboratories". The Joint Commission. 2025. Retrieved May 27 2026. Check date values in:
|accessdate=(help)