ArticleJournal of medical biochemistry2020
Measuring plasma ferritin levels with two different methods: A comparison of Roche Cobas e601 versus Roche Cobas c501 (integrated modular system Roche Cobas 6000).
Article in Journal of medical biochemistry, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical performance validation and four diagnostic strategy assessments of high-sensitivity troponin I assays.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
- Comparison of two ferritin assay platforms to assess their level of agreement in measuring serum and plasma ferritin levels in patients with chronic kidney disease.BMC nephrology · 2023Article
- Serum iron is closely associated with metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease in type 2 diabetes: A real-world study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of our study is to compare plasma ferritin levels found to be high or low in terms of reference range by means of electrochemiluminescence (ECLIA) and immunoturbidimetric method and to examine whether they can be used interchangeably.
methods84 patients with high plasma ferritin level and 153 patients with low ferritin level according to the re ference range were included in the study. Plasma samples measured in Cobas e601 device with ECLIA were also measured as immunoturbidimetric Cobas c501 device. For method comparison, CLSI EP9-A3 Guideline was used. While the consistency between the methods were specified with Passing-Bablok regression analysis and Spearman cor relation analysis, bias error between the methods (bias%) was determined through Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsBoth high and low plasma ferritin levels measured with Cobas e601 module and determined high in terms of reference range were compared with the results found with cobas c501 module. The difference was found to be statistically significant (p<0.001). According to regression and correlation (for low plasma ferritin levels; r: 0.993, p<0.001, for high plasma ferritin levels; r: 0.966, p<0.001) results, the methods were in consistency with each other. Additionally, while the bias% value was found to be 10.4% for low plasma ferritin levels, it was found to be 12.6% for high ferritin levels.
conclusionsAccordingly, we believe that, comparison with more samples especially in terms of different clinical decision levels is required in order to examine inter changeable use of immunoturbidimetric method in integrated devices and ECLIA.
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.