Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31232530›Full record

Trial reportDrug testing and analysis2019

Sensitivity and specificity of detection methods for erythropoietin doping in cyclists.

Jules A A C Heuberger, Peter van Eenoo, Joris I Rotmans, Pim Gal, Frederik E Stuurman, Titiaan E Post, Johannes M A Daniels, Herman Ram, Olivier de Hon, Jacobus Burggraaf and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Drug testing and analysis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Jules A A C HeubergerCentre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7202-5088
Peter van EenooDoCoLab, Ghent, Belgium.
Joris I RotmansDepartment of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
Pim GalCentre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, Netherlands.
Frederik E StuurmanCentre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, Netherlands.
Titiaan E PostCentre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, Netherlands.
Johannes M A DanielsDepartment of Pulmonary Diseases, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Herman RamAnti-Doping Authority the Netherlands, Capelle aan den IJssel, Netherlands.
Olivier de HonAnti-Doping Authority the Netherlands, Capelle aan den IJssel, Netherlands.
Jacobus BurggraafCentre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, Netherlands.
Adam F CohenCentre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, Netherlands.
Centre for Human Drug Research · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLNetherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority · NLAmsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLUniversity College Ghent · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) is used as doping a substance. Anti-doping efforts include urine and blood testing and monitoring the athlete biological passport (ABP). As data on the performance of these methods are incomplete, this study aimed to evaluate the performance of two common urine assays and the ABP. In a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, 48 trained cyclists received a mean dose of 6000 IU rHuEPO (epoetin β) or placebo by weekly injection for eight weeks. Seven timed urine and blood samples were collected per subject. Urine samples were analyzed by sarcosyl-PAGE and isoelectric focusing methods in the accredited DoCoLab in Ghent. A selection of samples, including any with false presumptive findings, underwent a second sarcosyl-PAGE confirmation analysis. Hematological parameters were used to construct a module similar to the ABP and analyzed by two evaluators from an Athlete Passport Management Unit. Sensitivity of the sarcosyl-PAGE and isoelectric focusing assays for the detection of erythropoietin abuse were 63.8% and 58.6%, respectively, with a false presumptive finding rate of 4.3% and 6%. None of the false presumptive findings tested positive in the confirmation analysis. Sensitivity was highest between 2 and 6 days after dosing, and dropped rapidly outside this window. Sensitivity of the ABP was 91.3%. Specificity of the urine assays was high; however, the detection window of rHuEPO was narrow, leading to questionable sensitivity. The ABP, integrating longitudinal data, is more sensitive, but there are still subjects that evade detection. Combining these methods might improve performance, but will not resolve all observed shortcomings.

Indexed as

AdultAthletesBicyclingDoping in SportsDouble-Blind MethodElectrophoresis, Polyacrylamide GelErythropoietinHumansIsoelectric FocusingMaleMiddle AgedPerformance-Enhancing SubstancesPlacebo EffectRecombinant ProteinsSubstance Abuse DetectionYoung Adultepoetin betaErythropoietinPerformance-Enhancing SubstancesRecombinant Proteinsathlete biological passportdopingerythropoietinisoelectric focusingsarcosyl-PAGE

Identifiers

PMID31232530
PMCPMC6790592
OpenAlexW2953801385

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.