ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2019
Measuring lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 activity in China: Protocol comparison and recalibration.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- 4-Amino-TEMPO loaded liposomes as sensitive EPR and OMRI probes for the detection of phospholipase A2 activity.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- On the present and future role of Lp-PLAArchives of medical science : AMS · 2021Article
- Measuring lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 activity in China: Protocol comparison and recalibration.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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLp-PLA2 is a novel inflammation marker in cardiovascular disease. While several manufactures have registered Lp-PLA2 activity reagents, few studies have investigated the consistency among these assays. In this study, we compared and recalibrated Lp-PLA2 activity assays.
methodsSerum samples from 110 patients and 140 healthy individuals were collected for method comparison and reference interval validation, respectively. Fresh human serum pools (847 and 442 U/L) were used for recalibration. Lp-PLA2 activity was analyzed using all five assays with a Beckman AU 5800 analyzer. Passing-Bablok regression equations and Bland-Altman plots were used to estimate the relationship and bias among the results. A 2.5% confidence interval (CI) and 97.5% CI were used to establish a laboratory reference interval.
resultsAssay imprecision varied from 0.8%-2.9%, while the overall coincidence rates ranged from 75.5%-98.2%. Passing-Bablok regression shows excellent linear correlation between Evermed and Diasys (R
conclusionsOur results indicate that recalibration increased assay agreement and also highlight the need for each laboratory to establish its own reference interval for Lp-PLA2 activity.
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.