Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31223265›Full record

Observational studyBiochemia medica2019

Establishing the 99

Luisa Agnello, Chiara Bellia, Concetta Scazzone, Giulia Bivona, Giorgia Iacolino, Caterina Maria Gambino, Maddalena Muratore, Bruna Lo Sasso, Marcello Ciaccio

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Biochemia medica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Methodological Errors in Clinical Studies Published by Medical Journals of Ex-Yugoslav Countries.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Luisa AgnelloInstitute of Clinical Biochemistry, Clinical Molecular Medicine and Laboratory Medicine, Department of Biomedicine, Neurosciences and Advanced Diagnostics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Chiara BelliaInstitute of Clinical Biochemistry, Clinical Molecular Medicine and Laboratory Medicine, Department of Biomedicine, Neurosciences and Advanced Diagnostics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Concetta ScazzoneInstitute of Clinical Biochemistry, Clinical Molecular Medicine and Laboratory Medicine, Department of Biomedicine, Neurosciences and Advanced Diagnostics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Giulia BivonaInstitute of Clinical Biochemistry, Clinical Molecular Medicine and Laboratory Medicine, Department of Biomedicine, Neurosciences and Advanced Diagnostics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Giorgia IacolinoInstitute of Clinical Biochemistry, Clinical Molecular Medicine and Laboratory Medicine, Department of Biomedicine, Neurosciences and Advanced Diagnostics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Caterina Maria GambinoInstitute of Clinical Biochemistry, Clinical Molecular Medicine and Laboratory Medicine, Department of Biomedicine, Neurosciences and Advanced Diagnostics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Maddalena MuratoreUnit of Trasfusional Medicine, Villa Sofia-Cervello Hospital, Palermo, Italy.
Bruna Lo SassoInstitute of Clinical Biochemistry, Clinical Molecular Medicine and Laboratory Medicine, Department of Biomedicine, Neurosciences and Advanced Diagnostics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Marcello CiaccioInstitute of Clinical Biochemistry, Clinical Molecular Medicine and Laboratory Medicine, Department of Biomedicine, Neurosciences and Advanced Diagnostics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe knowledge of high sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hsTnI) distribution in a reference population is mandatory for its introduction in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to define the Upper Reference Limit (URL) of hsTnI measured by Single Molecule Counting technology (SMC) in an accurately selected reference population. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn the study 1140 blood donors were included and selected on the basis of medical history and biomarkers. High sensitivity cardiac troponin I was measured by SMC technology (Clarity, Singulex, Alamed, USA). The 99th percentile was calculated by the non-parametric method according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute - CLSI C28-A3.

resultsThe median age was 41 years (IQR: 28 - 50) and 69% were males. The overall 99th percentile was 5 ng/L (90% CI: 4.2 - 5.6). When considering sex-related differences, we found slight differences between the 99th percentile in males and females. Moreover, the 99th percentile trended with age, especially in females.

conclusionsWe defined the 99th percentile of hs-cTnI measured by SMC technology in a highly selected healthy population, with only minor differences between males and females. Our findings provide the basic criteria for the reliable interpretation of hsTnI concentrations measured by the SMC technology in clinical settings.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedBlood DonorsCoronary VesselsFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedReference ValuesTroponin IYoung AdultTroponin I99th percentilehigh sensitivitymyocardial infarctionreference valuestroponin I

Identifiers

PMID31223265
PMCPMC6559611

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.