ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2019
Performance evaluation of five commercial assays for detection of acetaminophen.
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.
- Article
- Effect of Meal Texture on Postprandial Glucose Excursions and Gut Hormones After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- Performance evaluation of five commercial assays for detection of acetaminophen.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the analytical performance of five commercial acetaminophen assays and select the best method for routine use.
methodsImprecision, accuracy, linearity, and interferences of three enzymatic assays (Beckman Coulter AU Paracetamol, Abbott MULTIGENT Acetaminophen, and Sekisui Acetaminophen L3K) and two immunoassay-based assays (Beckman Coulter SYNCHRON ACTM (Acetaminophen) Reagent and Siemens SYVA Emit-tox Acetaminophen) were evaluated on a Beckman Coulter AU680 chemistry analyzer. Hook effect for immunoassay-based assays and recovery in ultrafiltrate for enzymatic methods were studied.
resultsWithin-run and between-run imprecision of the enzymatic assays ranged 0.26%-0.82% and 0.53%-2.86%, respectively, while that for the immunoassay-based methods ranged 0.96%-6.34% and 1.50%-11.33%, respectively. All assays except the SYNCHRON assay fell within the program analytical performance specifications (±20 µmol/L or 10%) for external quality assurance (EQA) samples, with the highest positive bias (31.7%) observed in the SYNCHRON assay. Icteric interference was demonstrated most significantly in the Abbott assay (up to 88 μmol/L positive bias in blank serum). The lipemic interference on the SYNCHRON was significant (up to 110% positive bias at level of 100 μmol/L). The immunoassay-based methods were less susceptible to hemolytic interference, while the Abbott and AU assays were more susceptible to N-acetylcysteine interference. Both immunoassay-based methods showed no hook effect up to 18 000 μmol/L. Ultrafiltration recoveries for enzymatic methods were satisfactory, ranging from 80.0% ± 5.1% to 89.5% ± 3.0%.
conclusionsProportional bias was observed in the SYNCHRON assay, while the Siemens and Sekisui assays were minimally affected by bilirubin interferences.
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.