We have located links that may give you full text access.
Classification of Patients With GH Disorders May Vary According to the IGF-I Assay.
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2017 August 2
Context: Insulinlike growth factor I (IGF-I) measurement is essential for the diagnosis and management of growth hormone (GH) disorders. However, patient classification may vary substantially according to the assay technique.
Objective: We compared individual patient data and classifications obtained with six different IGF-I assay kits in a group of patients with various GH disorders.
Design: In this cross-sectional study, we measured IGF-I with six immunoassays in 102 patients with active or treated acromegaly or GH deficiency. IGF-I normative data previously established for the same six assay kits were used to classify the patients (high, low, or normal IGF-I levels), using both raw data and standard deviation scores (SDSs). Pairwise concordance between assays was assessed with Bland-Altman plots and with the percentage of observed agreement and the weighted κ coefficient for categorized IGF-I SDS.
Results: We observed marked variability both across each individual's IGF-I raw data and across IGF-I SDS values obtained with each of the six immunoassays. Pairwise concordance between assay values, as assessed with the weighted κ coefficient, ranged from 0.50 (moderate) to 0.81 (excellent).
Conclusion: Even when using normative data obtained in the same large population of healthy subjects and when using calculated IGF-I SDSs, agreement among IGF-I assay methods is only moderate to good. Differences in assay performance must be taken into account when evaluating and monitoring patients with GH disorders. This argues for the use of the same IGF-I assay for a given patient throughout follow-up.
Objective: We compared individual patient data and classifications obtained with six different IGF-I assay kits in a group of patients with various GH disorders.
Design: In this cross-sectional study, we measured IGF-I with six immunoassays in 102 patients with active or treated acromegaly or GH deficiency. IGF-I normative data previously established for the same six assay kits were used to classify the patients (high, low, or normal IGF-I levels), using both raw data and standard deviation scores (SDSs). Pairwise concordance between assays was assessed with Bland-Altman plots and with the percentage of observed agreement and the weighted κ coefficient for categorized IGF-I SDS.
Results: We observed marked variability both across each individual's IGF-I raw data and across IGF-I SDS values obtained with each of the six immunoassays. Pairwise concordance between assay values, as assessed with the weighted κ coefficient, ranged from 0.50 (moderate) to 0.81 (excellent).
Conclusion: Even when using normative data obtained in the same large population of healthy subjects and when using calculated IGF-I SDSs, agreement among IGF-I assay methods is only moderate to good. Differences in assay performance must be taken into account when evaluating and monitoring patients with GH disorders. This argues for the use of the same IGF-I assay for a given patient throughout follow-up.
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
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
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
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