We have located links that may give you full text access.
EVALUATION STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
Multicenter Evaluation of Cystatin C Measurement after Assay Standardization.
Clinical Chemistry 2017 April
BACKGROUND: Since 2010, a certified reference material ERM-DA471/IFCC has been available for cystatin C (CysC). This study aimed to assess the sources of uncertainty in results for clinical samples measured using standardized assays.
METHODS: This evaluation was performed in 2015 and involved 7 clinical laboratories located in France and Belgium. CysC was measured in a panel of 4 serum pools using 8 automated assays and a candidate isotope dilution mass spectrometry reference measurement procedure. Sources of uncertainty (imprecision and bias) were evaluated to calculate the relative expanded combined uncertainty for each CysC assay. Uncertainty was judged against the performance specifications derived from the biological variation model.
RESULTS: Only Siemens reagents on the Siemens systems and, to a lesser extent, DiaSys reagents on the Cobas system, provided results that met the minimum performance criterion calculated according to the intraindividual and interindividual biological variations. Although the imprecision was acceptable for almost all assays, an increase in the bias with concentration was observed for Gentian reagents, and unacceptably high biases were observed for Abbott and Roche reagents on their own systems.
CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive picture of the market situation since the release of ERM-DA471/IFCC shows that bias remains the major component of the combined uncertainty because of possible problems associated with the implementation of traceability. Although some manufacturers have clearly improved their calibration protocols relative to ERM-DA471, most of them failed to meet the criteria for acceptable CysC measurements.
METHODS: This evaluation was performed in 2015 and involved 7 clinical laboratories located in France and Belgium. CysC was measured in a panel of 4 serum pools using 8 automated assays and a candidate isotope dilution mass spectrometry reference measurement procedure. Sources of uncertainty (imprecision and bias) were evaluated to calculate the relative expanded combined uncertainty for each CysC assay. Uncertainty was judged against the performance specifications derived from the biological variation model.
RESULTS: Only Siemens reagents on the Siemens systems and, to a lesser extent, DiaSys reagents on the Cobas system, provided results that met the minimum performance criterion calculated according to the intraindividual and interindividual biological variations. Although the imprecision was acceptable for almost all assays, an increase in the bias with concentration was observed for Gentian reagents, and unacceptably high biases were observed for Abbott and Roche reagents on their own systems.
CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive picture of the market situation since the release of ERM-DA471/IFCC shows that bias remains the major component of the combined uncertainty because of possible problems associated with the implementation of traceability. Although some manufacturers have clearly improved their calibration protocols relative to ERM-DA471, most of them failed to meet the criteria for acceptable CysC measurements.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app