ArticleThe journal of applied laboratory medicine2019
Evaluation of CisBio ELISA for Chromogranin A Measurement.
Article in The journal of applied laboratory medicine, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of microfluidic technology based on surface-enhanced Raman scattering in cancer biomarker detection: A review.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2023Review
- Development of New Antibodies and an ELISA System to Detect the Potato Alkaloids α-Solanine and α-Chaconine.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Performance Evaluation of the KRYPTOR Compact PLUS Analyzer-Based B.R.A.H.M.S. CgA Ⅱ KRYPTOR Assay for Chromogranin A Measurement.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChromogranin A (CgA) is a nonspecific marker for the presence of neuroendocrine tumors and neuroendocrine differentiation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of the CisBio CgA ELISA.
methodsPrecision, linearity, limit of blank, and recovery of the CisBio CgA ELISA were evaluated. Seventy waste serum samples obtained from the clinical laboratory at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were analyzed by the CisBio CgA ELISA. Results were compared to those obtained from a reference laboratory that used a proprietary ELISA for serum CgA measurement. Paired waste plasma samples were also collected from 24 of these patients to assess possible differences between CgA in serum and plasma. Finally, a preliminary reference range study was performed with samples from healthy volunteers in serum (n = 60) and plasma (n = 60).
resultsWithin-run and between-run precision ranged from 3.0% to 5.1% and 4.8% to 12.9%, respectively. The limit of blank was 2.4 ng/mL. Recovery ranged from 88% to 102%. A statistically significant bias was observed when the CisBio CgA assay results were compared to those of a reference laboratory. Comparison of the 2 assays yielded a slope of 9.05, intercept of -18.0, and a correlation coefficient of 0.955. CgA values in serum correlated well to values measured in plasma.
conclusionsThe analytical performance of the CisBio CgA ELISA was acceptable. However, CgA results are method-specific owing to lack of standardization and use of different antibodies. This lack of standardization results in several challenges for the clinical laboratory when evaluating a CgA assay.
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.