ArticlePloS one2017
Analytical evaluation of three enzymatic assays for measuring total bile acids in plasma using a fully-automated clinical chemistry platform.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Increased circulating butyrate and ursodeoxycholate during probiotic intervention in humans with type 2 diabetes.BMC microbiology · 2022Trial
- Divergent effects of resistance and endurance exercise on plasma bile acids, FGF19, and FGF21 in humans.JCI insight · 2018Trial
- Measuring bile acids: Are we all talking the same language?Obstetric medicine · 2024Review
- A candidate reference measurement procedure for quantification of glycocholic acid in human serum based on isotope dilution liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2024Article
- Application of AI on cholangiocarcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- A simple and reliable bile acid assay in human serum by LC-MS/MS.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
- Analytical performance and method comparison of a quantitative point-of-care immunoassay for measurement of bile acids in cats and dogs.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2021Article
- Machine Learning Model Comparison in the Screening of Cholangiocarcinoma Using Plasma Bile Acids Profiles.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Bile Acids Quantification by Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry: Method Validation, Reference Range, and Interference Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- The association of serum total bile acid with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in Chinese adults: a cross sectional study.Lipids in health and disease · 2020Article
- Article
- A review of analytical platforms for accurate bile acid measurement.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the clinical significance of measuring bile acids concentration in plasma or serum has been recognized for long in patients with hepatobiliary disease and/or bile acid malabsorption, the reference separation techniques are expensive and mostly unsuitable for early diagnosis and for measuring large volumes of samples. Therefore, this study was aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of three commercial enzymatic techniques for measuring total bile acids in plasma using a fully-automated clinical chemistry platform.
methodsThree commercial enzymatic assays (from Diazyme, Randox and Sentinel) were adapted for use on a Cobas Roche c501. We performed imprecision and linearity studies, and we compared results with those obtained using a reference liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) technique on an identical set of lithium-heparin plasma samples.
resultsTotal imprecision was optimal, always equal or lower than 3%. All assays had optimal linearity between 3-138 μmol/L. The comparison studies showed good correlation with LC-MS data (Spearman's correlation coefficients always >0.92), but all plasma samples values were significantly underestimated using the commercial enzymatic assays (-44% for Diazyme, -16% for Randox and -12% for Sentinel). The agreement at the 10 and 40 μmol/L diagnostic thresholds of total bile acids in plasma ranged between 86-92%. This discrepancy was found to be mainly attributable to a heterogeneous composition in terms of bile acids content of the three assay calibrators.
conclusionsThis study suggests that the analytical performance of the three commercial enzymatic assays is excellent, thus confirming that automation of this important test by means of enzymatic assessment may be feasible, practical, reliable and supposedly cheap. Nevertheless, the underestimation of values compared to the reference LC-MS also suggests that the local definition and validation of reference ranges according to the combination between the specific enzymatic assay and the different clinical chemistry platforms may be advisable.
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.