ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2020
Identification of and solution for false D-dimer results.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application and concentration selection of dithiothreitol for correcting false elevation of D-dimer.Practical laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- D-dimer assay interference detected by the discrepancy in D-dimer concentrations at different dilutions: a case report.Biochemia medica · 2024Article
- Heterophilic antibodies leading to falsely positive D-dimer concentration in an adolescent.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2023Article
- Interference of D-dimer levels from heterophilic antibody in COVID-19: A serious concern in treatment and follow-up of patients.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2022Article
- Identification of and solution for false D-dimer results.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinically, D-dimer (DD) levels are mainly used to exclude diseases such as deep venous thrombosis (DVT). In clinical testing, DD assays can be subjected to interference that may cause false results, which directly affect the clinical diagnosis. Our hypothesis was that the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the fibrin degradation product (FDP)/DD and fibrinogen (Fib)/DD ratios were used to identify these false results and corrected via multiple dilutions.
methodsIn total, 16 776 samples were divided into three groups according to the DD levels detected by Sysmex CS5100 and CA7000: Group A, DD ≥ 2.0 μg/mL fibrinogen equivalent unit (FEU); group B, 0.5 < DD < 2.0 μg/mL FEU; and group C, DD ≤ 0.5 μg/mL FEU. The 95% CIs of the FDP/DD and Fib/DD ratios were calculated. Six abnormal DD results were found according to the 95% CIs. For verification, we performed multiple dilutions, compared the results with those of other instruments, and tested the addition of heterophilic blocking reagent (HBR).
resultsThe median and 95% CI of the FDP/DD ratio were 3.76 and 2.25-8.15 in group A, 5.63 and 2.86-10.58 in group B, 10.23 and 0.91-47.71 in groups C, respectively. For the Fib/DD ratio, the 95% CIs was 0.02-2.21 in group A, 0.68-8.15 in group B, and 3.82-55.27 in groups C. Six abnormal results were identified after multiple dilutions, by comparison with other detection systems, and after HBR addition.
conclusionsThe FDP/DD ratio is more reliable for identifying false results. If the FDP/DD ratio falls outside the 95% CI, it should be verified by different methods.
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.