ArticleBMC urology2015
Evaluation of a rapid quantitative determination method of PSA concentration with gold immunochromatographic strips.
Article in BMC urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of PSA Values from capillary dried blood spot analysis and venous serum samples.PloS one · 2025Article
- Transdermal Minimally Invasive Optical Multiplex Detection of Protein Biomarkers by Nanopillars Array-Embedded Microneedles.ACS nano · 2024Article
- The "Bloodless" Blood Test: Intradermal Prick Nanoelectronics for the Blood Extraction-Free Multiplex Detection of Protein Biomarkers.ACS nano · 2022Article
- Determination of trace aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) residue in milk by an immunochromatographic assay based on (PEI/PSS)Mikrochimica acta · 2020Article
- Claros System: A Rapid Microfluidics-Based Point-of-Care System for Quantitative Prostate Specific Antigen Analysis from Finger-Stick Blood.Advances in therapy · 2019Article
- Determination of Aflatoxin M1 and Chloramphenicol in Milk Based on Background Fluorescence Quenching Immunochromatographic Assay.BioMed research international · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProstate cancer remains the most common cancer in men. Qualitative or semi-quantitative immunochromatographic measurements of prostate specific antigen (PSA) have been shown to be simple, noninvasive and feasible. The aim of this study was to evaluate an optimized gold immunochromatographic strip device for the detection of PSA, in which the results can be analysed using a Chromogenic Rapid Test Reader to quantitatively assess the test results.
methodsThis reader measures the reflectance of the signal line via a charge-coupled device camera. For quantitative analysis, PSA concentration was computed via a calibration equation. Capillary blood samples from 305 men were evaluated, and two independent observers interpreted the test results after 12 min. Blood samples were also collected and tested with a conventional quantitative assay.
resultsSensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of the PSA rapid quantitative test system were 100, 96.6, 89.5, 100, and 97.4 %, respectively. Reproducibility of the test was 99.2, and interobserver variation was 8 % with a false positive rate of 3.4 %. The correlation coefficient between the ordinary quantitative assay and the rapid quantitative test was 0.960.
conclusionsThe PSA rapid quantitative test system provided results quickly and was easy to use, so that tests using this system can be easily performed at outpatient clinics or elsewhere. This system may also be useful for initial cancer screening and for point-of-care testing, because results can be obtained within 12 min and at a cost lower than that of conventional quantitative assays.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.