ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2020
Evaluation of chemiluminescent immunoassay quantitative detection for pro-gastrin-releasing peptide (ProGRP) in serum and plasma.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- From Method-Defined Signals to Reference Measurement Procedures: Two Decades of Mass Spectrometry-Based ProGRP Quantification.Journal of proteome research · 2026Article
- Evaluation of squamous cell carcinoma antigen as a diagnostic biomarker in pulmonary diseases: a male cohort study.Diagnostic pathology · 2026Article
- Method Comparison and Clinical Performance of Breast Cancer Tumor Markers on Novel Multiplex Immunoassay and Automatized LOCI Technology Platforms.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Pro-Gastrin-Releasing Peptide as a Marker of Small Cell Lung Cancer.Bulletin of experimental biology and medicine · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate a newly developed Hybiome ProGRP chemiluminescent assay.
methodsAnalytical sensitivity, precision, recovery, and equivalency of serum and plasma, serum stability, and complement interference of the Hybiome ProGRP assay were evaluated. Serum specimens from 318 individuals including 38 small cell lung cancer (SCLC), 65 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 53 benign lung diseases, and 162 healthy controls were assessed using the Hybiome ProGRP assay and Roche Elecsys ProGRP assay, and the results were compared.
resultsThe Hybiome ProGRP assay showed good analytical sensitivity, precision, and accuracy, and it showed equivalence between serum and plasma and serum stability. The methodological comparison results showed good correlation between the Hybiome and Roche assays (slope, 0.9889; intercept, 1.28). Both the Hybiome and Roche assays showed good ability to distinguish between SCLC and NSCLC. Based on 95% specificity in the NSCLC cohort, a clinical differentiation cut-off for separating SCLC from NSCLC patients was 114 pg/mL for the Hybiome assay and 117 pg/mL for the Roche assay; the AUC was 0.9166 and the sensitivity was 71.05% for Hybiome and 0.9045 and 76.32% for Roche, respectively.
conclusionThe Hybiome ProGRP chemiluminescent assay shows good analytical performance and good correlation with the Roche Elecsys ProGRP 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.