ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2019
Analytical validation of an in-house method for adenosine deaminase determination.
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 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.
- Acute effects of a single electroacupuncture session on purinergic signaling and inflammatory markers in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a pilot study.Purinergic signalling · 2026Article
- Analytical validation of an in-house method for adenosine deaminase determination.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe adenosine deaminase (ADA) enzyme is a marker of inflammatory processes whose activity can be measured through a colorimetric method developed as an in-house assay. This validation can reduce costs and expand the alternatives for laboratory diagnosis.
methodsThe ADA analysis was achieved through a modified form of Giusti and Galanti's (1984) method. The following parameters were characterized: calibration curve, linearity, analytical sensitivity, limit of detection, limit of quantification, method working range, precision (within-assay and between-assay), bias, total analytical error, and sample stability. The results were statistically evaluated and compared with quality specifications based on biological variations and the performance of commercial tests.
resultsThe analytical sensitivity and limit of detection (0.013 and 3.0 U/L, respectively) were lower than those of commercial tests. The method's working range was 3.2-100.0 U/L. According to the quality specification, the method showed optimum performance with a bias <3.5%. However, repeatability (2.2% and 1.7% for normal- and high-activity samples, respectively) and reproducibility achieved worse results when compared to commercial tests. The method demonstrated an inappropriate between-assay precision for low enzymatic activity (10.4%) and the minimum and desirable performance for medium (8.8%) and high (5.0%) activities, respectively. It also presented at least a minimum performance (<25%) for the total analytical error of the three analyzed samples. The pleural fluid samples were found to be stable at -20°C for six days.
conclusionThe findings show that the in-house method displays an acceptable performance and is capable of generating results comparable to existing commercial tests.
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.