ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2017
Performance evaluation of enzyme immunoassay for voriconazole therapeutic drug monitoring with automated clinical chemistry analyzers.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Voriconazole Based on High-Performance Liquid Chromatography: A Single-Center Pilot Study in Outpatients.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparison of LC-MSMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveVoriconazole is a triazole antifungal developed for the treatment of fungal infectious disease, and the clinical utility of its therapeutic drug monitoring has been evaluated. Recently, a new assay for analyzing the serum voriconazole concentration with an automated clinical chemistry analyzer was developed. We evaluated the performance of the new assay based on standardized protocols.
methodsThe analytical performance of the assay was evaluated according to its precision, trueness by recovery, limit of quantitation, linearity, and correlation with results from liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The evaluation was performed with the same protocol on two different routine chemistry analyzers. All evaluations were performed according to CLSI Guidelines EP15, EP17, EP6, and EP9 [1-4].
resultsCoefficients of variation for within-run and between-day imprecision were 3.2-5.1% and 1.5-3.0%, respectively, on the two different analyzers for pooled serum samples. The recovery rates were in the range of 95.4-102.2%. The limit of blank was 0.0049 μg/mL, and the limit of detection of the samples was 0.0266-0.0376 μg/mL. The percent recovery at three LoQ levels were 67.9-74.6% for 0.50 μg/mL, 75.5-80.2% for 0.60 μg/mL, and 89.9-96.6% for 0.70 μg/mL. A linear relationship was demonstrated between 0.5 μg/mL and 16.0 μg/mL (
conclusionsThe assay showed acceptable precision, trueness, linearity, and limit of quantification, and correlated well with LC-MS/MS. Therefore, its analytical performance is satisfactory for monitoring the drug concentration of voriconazole.
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.