ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2020
Whole blood titanium metal ion measurement reproducibility of two laboratories.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Whole Blood Titanium Concentration after Limb Salvage Surgery with Three-Dimensional-Printed Ti6Al4V Implants.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMetal ion blood concentrations evaluation can be useful in monitoring wear and corrosion of orthopedic implants. Elevated metal ion level may help detecting defective hip arthroplasty implants and serve as an indicator for revision surgery. Our objective was to evaluate the reproducibility of titanium metal ion level measurements by two different laboratories.
methodsSeventy-one whole blood samples were collected from 64 patients with unilateral ceramic-on-ceramic hip arthroplasty. For each patient, two whole blood samples were collected and analyzed in two different laboratories.
resultsFor each case, laboratory 1 had significantly higher values than laboratory 2. There was a clinically significant absolute difference between the two laboratories, above the predetermined threshold, for 90% of samples. A mean variation ratio of 410% between the two laboratories was found.
conclusionNot all laboratories use the same techniques and calibrations to perform these measurements. Therefore, their results should be interpreted with caution and clinical decision should rely on metal ion trends provided by the same laboratory.
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.