Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19538965›Full record

ReviewJournal of immunological methods2009

The fundamental flaws of immunoassays and potential solutions using tandem mass spectrometry.

Andrew N Hoofnagle, Mark H Wener

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of immunological methods, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 199 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
199citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

199 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Sex and Age but Not Body Mass Index (BMI) Predict Serum Retinol Binding Protein 4 (RBP4) and Transthyretin (TTR) Concentrations.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2025
    Article

139 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Andrew N HoofnagleDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. ahoof@u.washington.edu
Mark H Wener

Funding

PILOT STUDY--CLINICAL NUTRITION RESEARCHP30DK035816 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Ellen A Schur · 1986 to 2026
$30.4M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK035816
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immunoassays have made it possible to measure dozens of individual proteins and other analytes in human samples for help in establishing the diagnosis and prognosis of disease. In too many cases the results of those measurements are misleading and can lead to unnecessary treatment or missed opportunities for therapeutic interventions. These cases stem from problems inherent to immunoassays performed with human samples, which include a lack of concordance across platforms, autoantibodies, anti-reagent antibodies, and the high-dose hook effect. Tandem mass spectrometry may represent a detection method capable of alleviating many of the flaws inherent to immunoassays. We review our understanding of the problems associated with immunoassays on human specimens and describe methodologies using tandem mass spectrometry that could solve some of those problems. We also provide a critical discussion of the potential pitfalls of novel mass spectrometric approaches in the clinical laboratory.

Indexed as

ArtifactsImmunoassayTandem Mass SpectrometryAntibodies, HeterophileAutoantibodiesBiomarkersDose-Response Relationship, ImmunologicHumansMedical ErrorsPredictive Value of TestsQuality ControlReproducibility of ResultsThyroglobulinAntibodies, HeterophileAutoantibodiesBiomarkersThyroglobulin

Identifiers

PMID19538965
PMCPMC2720067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.