• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Comparison of four routinely used vitamin D automated immunoassays

J. Windrichova, P. Broz, R. Fuchsova, O. Topolcan, L. Pecen, O. Mayer, R. Kucera

. 2021 ; 40 (3) : 277-285. [pub] 2021Jun05

Jazyk angličtina Země Srbsko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc21017610

Background: To compare four automated immunoassays for the measurement of 25(OH)-vitamin D (25-OHD) and to assess the impact on the results obtained from a healthy population. Methods: We analysed 100 serum samples on Unicel DxI 800 (Beckman Coulter), Architect i1000 (Abbott), Cobas e411 (Roche) and Liaison XL (DiaSorin). Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman plots were used for method comparison. In order to categorise the obtained values, results were categorised into the following groups: 0-25 nmol/L, 25-50 nmol/L, 50-75 nmol/L and above 75 nmol/L and compared. The percentage of samples below 75 nmol/L, and below 50 nmol/L was then calculated for every method. Results: According to paired comparisons, each method differs from others (p<0.0001) except Cobas vs Architect, which do not show a statistically significant difference (p=0.39). The strongest correlation was found between Liaison and Architect (ρ=0.94, p<0.0001). The percentage of samples below the recommended value of 75 nmol/L were: 70% (Architect), 92% (Liaison), 71% (Cobas) and 89% (Unicel). The percentage of samples below the value of 50 nmol/L were: 17% (Architect), 55% (Liaison), 28% (Cobas) and 47% (Unicel). Conclusions: The observed differences stem from the use of different analytical systems for 25-OHD concentration analysis and can result in different outcomes. The recommended values should be established for each assay in accordance with the data provided by the manufacturer or in the laboratory, in accordance with proper standardisation.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc21017610
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20210729103945.0
007      
ta
008      
210726s2021 rb f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.5937/jomb0-27531 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)34177372
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a rb
100    1_
$a Windrichova, Jindra $u University Hospital Pilsen, Department of Immunochemistry Diagnostics, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Comparison of four routinely used vitamin D automated immunoassays / $c J. Windrichova, P. Broz, R. Fuchsova, O. Topolcan, L. Pecen, O. Mayer, R. Kucera
520    9_
$a Background: To compare four automated immunoassays for the measurement of 25(OH)-vitamin D (25-OHD) and to assess the impact on the results obtained from a healthy population. Methods: We analysed 100 serum samples on Unicel DxI 800 (Beckman Coulter), Architect i1000 (Abbott), Cobas e411 (Roche) and Liaison XL (DiaSorin). Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman plots were used for method comparison. In order to categorise the obtained values, results were categorised into the following groups: 0-25 nmol/L, 25-50 nmol/L, 50-75 nmol/L and above 75 nmol/L and compared. The percentage of samples below 75 nmol/L, and below 50 nmol/L was then calculated for every method. Results: According to paired comparisons, each method differs from others (p<0.0001) except Cobas vs Architect, which do not show a statistically significant difference (p=0.39). The strongest correlation was found between Liaison and Architect (ρ=0.94, p<0.0001). The percentage of samples below the recommended value of 75 nmol/L were: 70% (Architect), 92% (Liaison), 71% (Cobas) and 89% (Unicel). The percentage of samples below the value of 50 nmol/L were: 17% (Architect), 55% (Liaison), 28% (Cobas) and 47% (Unicel). Conclusions: The observed differences stem from the use of different analytical systems for 25-OHD concentration analysis and can result in different outcomes. The recommended values should be established for each assay in accordance with the data provided by the manufacturer or in the laboratory, in accordance with proper standardisation.
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Broz, Pavel $u University Hospital Pilsen, Department of Immunochemistry Diagnostics, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Fuchsova, Radka $u University Hospital Pilsen, Institute of Clinical Biochemistry and Hematology, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Topolcan, Ondrej $u University Hospital Pilsen, Department of Immunochemistry Diagnostics, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Pecen, Ladislav $u University Hospital Pilsen, Department of Immunochemistry Diagnostics, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Mayer, Otto $u University Hospital Pilsen, Second Internal Clinic, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Kucera, Radek $u University Hospital Pilsen, Department of Immunochemistry Diagnostics, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00198744 $t Journal of medical biochemistry $x 1452-8258 $g Roč. 40, č. 3 (2021), s. 277-285
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34177372 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20210726 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20210729103944 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ind $b bmc $g 1676356 $s 1138052
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2021 $b 40 $c 3 $d 277-285 $e 2021Jun05 $i 1452-8258 $m Journal of medical biochemistry $n J Med Biochem $x MED00198744
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20210726

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...