Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23775009›Full record

ArticleTumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine2013

Evaluation of a CLEIA automated assay system for the detection of a panel of tumor markers.

Renato Falzarano, Valentina Viggiani, Simona Michienzi, Flavia Longo, Silvestra Tudini, Luigi Frati, Emanuela Anastasi

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Low 25-OH vitamin D levels at time of diagnosis and recurrence of ovarian cancer.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2016
    Article
  8. Article
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Renato FalzaranoLaboratory of Tumor Markers, Department of Molecular Medicine, University "Sapienza", Viale Regina Elena 324, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Valentina Viggiani
Simona Michienzi
Flavia Longo
Silvestra Tudini
Luigi Frati
Emanuela Anastasi
Sapienza University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tumor markers are commonly used to detect a relapse of disease in oncologic patients during follow-up. It is important to evaluate new assay systems for a better and more precise assessment, as a standardized method is currently lacking. The aim of this study was to assess the concordance between an automated chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay system (LUMIPULSE® G1200) and our reference methods using seven tumor markers. Serum samples from 787 subjects representing a variety of diagnoses, including oncologic, were analyzed using LUMIPULSE® G1200 and our reference methods. Serum values were measured for the following analytes: prostate-specific antigen (PSA), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen 125 (CA125), carbohydrate antigen 15-3 (CA15-3), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), and cytokeratin 19 fragment (CYFRA 21-1). For the determination of CEA, AFP, and PSA, an automatic analyzer based on chemiluminescence was applied as reference method. To assess CYFRA 21-1, CA125, CA19-9, and CA15-3, an immunoradiometric manual system was employed. Method comparison by Passing-Bablok analysis resulted in slopes ranging from 0.9728 to 1.9089 and correlation coefficients from 0.9977 to 0.9335. The precision of each assay was assessed by testing six serum samples. Each sample was analyzed for all tumor biomarkers in duplicate and in three different runs. The coefficients of variation were less than 6.3 and 6.2 % for within-run and between-run variation, respectively. Our data suggest an overall good interassay agreement for all markers. The comparison with our reference methods showed good precision and reliability, highlighting its usefulness in clinical laboratory's routine.

Indexed as

Antigens, NeoplasmBiomarkers, TumorCase-Control StudiesFalse Negative ReactionsHumansKeratin-19Luminescent MeasurementsNeoplasmsReference Valuesantigen CYFRA21.1Antigens, NeoplasmBiomarkers, TumorKeratin-19

Identifiers

PMID23775009
OpenAlexW1994007039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.