ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2020
How to choose a point-of-care testing for troponin.
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 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic equipment and point-of-care tests in Norwegian emergency primary healthcare clinics: a cross-sectional study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- Point-of-Care Testing for Cardiovascular Disease: A Narrative Review.Current medicinal chemistry · 2025Review
- The role of antibody-based troponin detection in cardiovascular disease: A critical assessment.Journal of immunological methods · 2021Review
- How to choose a point-of-care testing for troponin.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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPoint-of-care (POC) cTn assays are needed when the central laboratory is unable to provide timely results to the emergency department. Many POC devices are available. The prospect of choosing them is daunting. In order to provide a quick decision-making reference for POC cTn device selection comparing them to the central laboratory, seven POC devices commonly employed by emergency department were evaluated.
methodsFirstly, we reviewed all devices package inserts. Secondly, we evaluated several POC cTn assays for imprecision, linearity, and correlation with central laboratory assays according to CLSI EP protocols. The linear regression analyses were performed only for the detectable concentrations. Five cTnI devices (Alere Triage, BioMerieux Vidas, Mitsubishi Pathfast, ReLIA TZ-301, and Radiometer AQT90) were evaluated against a contemporary cTnI assay (Beckman Access II Accu TnI). Two cTnT assays (Radiometer AQT90 and Roche Cobas h232) were compared to a high-sensitivity (hs) cTnT method (Roche Cobas e601).
resultsFor cTn levels around the 99th percentile upper reference limits (URLs) of the comparator assays, imprecision could not be assessed for the Alere, BioMerieux, and Cobas h232 as they gave undetectable readings due to a lack of assay sensitivity. Imprecision (CV) was unacceptably high for the ReLIA (33.3%). On account of this precision metric, these four assays were deemed unsuitable. Regression analyses showed acceptable linearity for all the POC devices. The correlation coefficients for ReLIA, BioMerieux, Cobas h232, and Radiometer cTnT were >0.95. Unlike the cTnT devices, the cTnI assays employ different capture and detection antibodies leading to non-commutable results. The POC cTn results were concordant with their comparator-Radiometer cTnT 90%, Pathfast cTnI 85%, and Radiometer cTnI 75%.
conclusionOur study provides the procedure and essential data to guide selection of a POC cTn device. Of the point-of-care devices, methods evaluated Radiometer AQT90 (cTnI and cTnT) and Pathfast might be considered.
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.