Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26889680›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2016

Analytical Performance of ELISA Assays in Urine: One More Bottleneck towards Biomarker Validation and Clinical Implementation.

Despina Chatziharalambous, Vasiliki Lygirou, Agnieszka Latosinska, Konstantinos Stravodimos, Antonia Vlahou, Vera Jankowski, Jerome Zoidakis

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialValidation Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. A simple urine test by 3D-plus-3D immunoassay guides preciseBioengineering & translational medicine · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Evaluation of a New Survivin ELISA and UBCInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Despina ChatziharalambousBiotechnology Laboratory, Centre of Basic Research, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Vasiliki LygirouBiotechnology Laboratory, Centre of Basic Research, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Agnieszka LatosinskaBiotechnology Laboratory, Centre of Basic Research, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Konstantinos StravodimosDepartment of Urology, Laikon Hospital, University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece.
Antonia VlahouBiotechnology Laboratory, Centre of Basic Research, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Vera JankowskiRWTH-Aachen, Institute for Molecular Cardiovascular Research (IMCAR), Aachen, Germany.
Jerome ZoidakisBiotechnology Laboratory, Centre of Basic Research, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens · GRNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GRRWTH Aachen University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ELISA is the main approach for the sensitive quantification of protein biomarkers in body fluids and is currently employed in clinical laboratories for the measurement of clinical markers. As such, it also constitutes the main methodological approach for biomarker validation and further qualification. For the latter, specific assay performance requirements have to be met, as described in respective guidelines of regulatory agencies. Even though many clinical ELISA assays in serum are regularly used, ELISA clinical applications in urine are significantly less. The scope of our study was to evaluate ELISA assay analytical performance in urine for a series of potential biomarkers for bladder cancer, as a first step towards their large scale clinical validation. Seven biomarkers (Secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine, Survivin, Slit homolog 2 protein, NRC-Interacting Factor 1, Histone 2B, Proteinase-3 and Profilin-1) previously described in the literature as having differential expression in bladder cancer were included in the study. A total of 11 commercially available ELISA tests for these markers were tested by standard curve analysis, assay reproducibility, linearity and spiking experiments. The results show disappointing performance with coefficients of variation>20% for the vast majority of the tests performed. Only 3 assays (for Secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine, Survivin and Slit homolog 2 protein) passed the accuracy thresholds and were found suitable for further application in marker quantification. These results collectively reflect the difficulties in developing urine-based ELISA assays of sufficient analytical performance for clinical application, presumably attributed to the urine matrix itself and/or presence of markers in various isoforms.

Indexed as

Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayBiomarkers, TumorHumansReproducibility of ResultsUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID26889680
PMCPMC4758723
OpenAlexW2287315278

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.