Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine · 2007
Measurement of calcitonin by immunoassay analyzers.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bieglmayer Christian, Vierhapper Heinrich, Dudczak Robert, Niederle Bruno
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Since Nichols Institute Diagnostics (NID) ended production of their automated calcitonin immunoassay, evaluation of an alternative calcitonin assay was necessary.
METHODS: Calcitonin measured by the NID procedure was compared with a test from Diagnostic Products Corporation (DPC). Calcitonin was also measured by assays from DiaSorin (DS) and Scantibodies (SC).
RESULTS: In 187 samples, detection failed either by NID (39%) or DPC (96%) assay; in 35% of samples, the tests agreed for non-measurable calcitonin. The regression line DPC=0.78 x NID-0.3 (r=0.998) fitted results from 236 samples with detectable calcitonin. A linear relationship, albeit with scattering at low concentrations, was observed. Importantly, stimulation by pentagastrin above basal calcitonin concentrations yielded similar results with both assays. Comparisons (DPC=0.80 x DS-3.4 and DPC=0.81 x SC-1.1) confirmed an aberrant calibration of the DPC test. To overcome the method bias, we propose a multiplication factor of 0.8 to convert NID to DPC results.
CONCLUSIONS: Apparently due to non-specific effects, the DS and SC assays produced calcitonin results in samples from completely thyroidectomized patients, while the DPC assay correctly failed to detect calcitonin. Thus, the DPC assay on an Immulite 2000 analyzer may be used as a more accurate substitute for NID if the different calibration is noted.
METHODS: Calcitonin measured by the NID procedure was compared with a test from Diagnostic Products Corporation (DPC). Calcitonin was also measured by assays from DiaSorin (DS) and Scantibodies (SC).
RESULTS: In 187 samples, detection failed either by NID (39%) or DPC (96%) assay; in 35% of samples, the tests agreed for non-measurable calcitonin. The regression line DPC=0.78 x NID-0.3 (r=0.998) fitted results from 236 samples with detectable calcitonin. A linear relationship, albeit with scattering at low concentrations, was observed. Importantly, stimulation by pentagastrin above basal calcitonin concentrations yielded similar results with both assays. Comparisons (DPC=0.80 x DS-3.4 and DPC=0.81 x SC-1.1) confirmed an aberrant calibration of the DPC test. To overcome the method bias, we propose a multiplication factor of 0.8 to convert NID to DPC results.
CONCLUSIONS: Apparently due to non-specific effects, the DS and SC assays produced calcitonin results in samples from completely thyroidectomized patients, while the DPC assay correctly failed to detect calcitonin. Thus, the DPC assay on an Immulite 2000 analyzer may be used as a more accurate substitute for NID if the different calibration is noted.