ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2018
Comparison of Four Automated Carcinoembryonic Antigen Immunoassays: ADVIA Centaur XP, ARCHITECT I2000sr, Elecsys E170, and Unicel Dxi800.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2018. 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, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance validation and clinical concordance of a novel fully automated immunoassay system for five tumor markers: A comparative study with an international reference platform.Practical laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Harmonization of IgG antibody values against the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Circulating Biomarkers of Thyroid Cancer: An Appraisal.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Laboratory Data as a Potential Source of Bias in Healthcare Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Models.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Gold Nanotapes and Nanopinecones in a Quantitative Lateral Flow Assay for the Cancer Biomarker Carcinoembryonic Antigen.ACS applied nano materials · 2023Article
- Method Comparison and Clinical Performance of Breast Cancer Tumor Markers on Novel Multiplex Immunoassay and Automatized LOCI Technology Platforms.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Performance evaluation of QuantStudio 1 plus real-time PCR instrument for clinical laboratory analysis: A proof-of-concept study.Practical laboratory medicine · 2023Article
- Accurate method for value assignment of carcinoembryonic antigen reference materials.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Analytical Performances of Magnetic Force-Assisted Electrochemical Sandwich Immunoassay for the Quantification of Carcinoembryonic Antigen.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Article
- A vertical flow microarray chip based on SERS nanotags for rapid and ultrasensitive quantification of α-fetoprotein and carcinoembryonic antigen.Mikrochimica acta · 2019Article
- HbA1c showed a positive association with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level in only diabetes, not prediabetic or normal individuals.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCarcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is one of the tumor markers available for evaluating disease progression status after initial therapy and monitoring subsequent treatment modalities in colorectal, gastrointestinal, lung, and breast carcinoma. We evaluated the correlations and differences between widely used, automated CEA immunoassays at four different medical laboratories.
methodsIn total, 393 serum samples with CEA ranging from 3.0 to 1,000 ng/mL were analyzed on ADVIA Centaur XP (Siemens Diagnostics, Tarrytown, NY, USA), ARCHITECT i2000sr (Abbott Diagnostics, Abbott Park, IL, USA), Elecsys E170 (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN, USA), and Unicel DxI800 (Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, CA, USA), and the results were compared. Deming regression, Passing-Bablok regression, and Bland-Altman analyses were performed to evaluate the data correlation and % differences among these assays.
resultsDeming regression analysis of data from Elecsys E170 and UniCel DxI800 showed good correlation (y=3.1615+0.8970x). According to Bland-Altman plot, no statistically significant bias (-1.78 ng/mL [95% confidence interval: -4.02 to 0.46]) was observed between Elecsys E170 and UniCel DxI800. However, the relative differences of CEA concentrations between assays exceeded the acceptable limit of 30%. Regarding the agreement of positivity with cut-off value 5.0 ng/mL, ARCHITECT i2000sr and Elecsys E170 showed the highest agreement (95.2%), whereas ADVIA Centaur XP and ARCHITECT i2000sr showed the lowest agreement (70.7%).
conclusionsAgreements between automated CEA immunoassays are variable, and individual CEA concentrations may differ significantly between assays. Standardization of serum CEA concentrations and further harmonization are needed.
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.