ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2018
Comparison of the novel ARCHITECT procalcitonin assay with established procalcitonin assay systems.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Procalcitonin Compared to C-Reactive Protein and Interleukin 6 in Recognizing Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infection: A Meta-Analytic Study.Disease markers · 2020Pooled it
- Biomarkers for risk stratification and antibiotic stewardship in elderly patients.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2023Review
- Comparison of a novel automated DiaSys procalcitonin immunoassay with four different BRAHMS-partnered immunoassays.Practical laboratory medicine · 2022Article
- Concordance of Three Automated Procalcitonin Immunoassays at Medical Decision Points.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2021Article
- Analytical Evaluation of the New Beckman Coulter Access Procalcitonin (PCT) Chemiluminescent Immunoassay.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Procalcitonin versus C-reactive protein: review of kinetics and performance for diagnosis of neonatal sepsis.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2019Review
- Evaluation of INSTAND e.V.'s external quality assessment for C-reactive protein and procalcitonin.PloS one · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis study assessed the performance of a new fully automated immunoassay, ARCHITECT B.R.A.H.M.S procalcitonin (PCT), comparing the results with other commercial assays on routine clinical specimens.
methodsAt nine sites from eight countries, precision analysis was carried out on controls by ANOVA. Threshold and linearity were verified according to standard procedures. Comparison of ARCHITECT B.R.A.H.M.S PCT with the Cobas
resultsThe within-laboratory standard deviation and %CV across all sites ranged from 0.005 to 0.008 and 2.7 to 4.1; 0.040 to 0.212 and 2.1 to 11.7; 1.628 to 4.191 and 2.5-6.3 for the three control levels, respectively. The mean slope (linearity analysis) across all sites ranged from 0.85 to 1.03, with a mean y-intercept ranging from -6.15 to + 1.71 and a correlation coefficient ranging from 0.94 to 1.00. The LoB, LoD, and LoQ claims were verified. Deming regression analysis of 1116 plasma or serum samples with PCT results detected across a dynamic assay range of 0.02-100 μg/l using the ARCHITECT B.R.A.H.M.S PCT assay yielded results of r = 0.989 vs. Roche Cobas
conclusionsCompared with other assays, ARCHITECT B.R.A.H.M.S PCT offers excellent precision and low-end sensitivity.
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.