ArticlePloS one2018
Internal quality assurance of HIL indices on Roche Cobas c702.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transdermal Semaglutide Administration in Mice: Reduces Body Weight by Suppressing Appetite and Enhancing Metabolic Rate.Biology · 2025Article
- Are we ready to integrate advanced artificial intelligence models in clinical laboratory?Biochemia medica · 2025Review
- Biomarkers of brain injury after cardiac arrest; a statistical analysis plan from the TTM2 trial biobank investigators.Resuscitation plus · 2022Article
- Advances in laboratory assessment of thrombosis and hemostasis.Blood research · 2022Review
- Frequency of icteric interference in clinical chemistry laboratory tests and causes of severe icterus.Practical laboratory medicine · 2021Article
- Bile Acids Quantification by Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry: Method Validation, Reference Range, and Interference Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Automatic assessment of hemoglobin (H), lipaemia (L) and icterus (I) in serum or plasma (HIL indices) is the mainstay for evaluating sample quality. We planned this study to verify whether in-house prepared internal quality control (IQC) materials may be suitable for quality assurance of HIL indices. Pools containing different values of each of the three HIL indices were prepared from routine plasma samples, divided in aliquots and frozen at -20°C. Stability of frozen materials was assessed by thawing one aliquot of each pool after different days of freezing (1, 4, 8, 15, 22 and 29), and by measuring HIL indices on baseline fresh samples and frozen-thawed aliquots with Roche Cobas c702. Five fresh liquid IQCs materials were also measured at the same time points. Intra-assay and inter-assay imprecision of HIL indices calculated with commercial IQC materials ranged between 1.1-2.0% and 1.6-3.3%, respectively. When target values of HIL indices were calculated using frozen-thawed aliquots, the inter-assay imprecision of in-house prepared materials was optimal, even better than that of commercial liquid IQCs (H-index, 0.8% versus 1.6%; L-index, 2.2% versus 2.5%; I-index, 0.8% versus 3.3%). In conclusion, in-house prepared IQC materials are cost-effective alternatives to commercial liquid IQCs for HIL quality assurance.
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.