Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25644123›Full record

ReviewProteomics. Clinical applications2015

ELISA in the multiplex era: potentials and pitfalls.

Patrick J Tighe, Richard R Ryder, Ian Todd, Lucy C Fairclough

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Proteomics. Clinical applications, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 179 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
179citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

179 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

119 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

4 authors.

Patrick J TigheSchool of Life Sciences, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Richard R Ryder
Ian Todd
Lucy C Fairclough

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiplex immunoassays confer several advantages over widely adopted singleplex immunoassays including increased efficiency at a reduced expense, greater output per sample volume ratios and higher throughput predicating more resolute, detailed diagnostics and facilitating personalised medicine. Nonetheless, to date, relatively few protein multiplex immunoassays have been validated for in vitro diagnostics in clinical/point-of-care settings. This review article will outline the challenges, which must be ameliorated prior to the widespread integration of multiplex immunoassays in clinical settings: (i) biomarker validation; (ii) standardisation of immunoassay design and quality control (calibration and quantification); (iii) availability, stability, specificity and cross-reactivity of reagents; (iv) assay automation and the use of validated algorithms for transformation of raw data into diagnostic results. A compendium of multiplex immunoassays applicable to in vitro diagnostics and a summary of the diagnostic products currently available commercially are included, along with an analysis of the relative states of development for each format (namely planar slide based, suspension and planar/microtitre plate based) with respect to the aforementioned issues.

Indexed as

BiomarkersEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayHumansImmunoassayBiomarkersELISAIn vitro diagnosticsMultiplex immunoassay

Identifiers

PMID25644123
PMCPMC6680274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.