ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2020
Comparability of four clinical laboratory measurement methods for GGT and commutability of candidate reference materials.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Circulating Biomarkers as a Window into the Relationship between Sarcopenia and Diabetes: Implications for Effective Management.Current diabetes reviews · 2026Review
- Beyond the method change in clinical practice: evaluation of insulin-like growth factor I assay.Advances in laboratory medicine · 2022Article
- Comparability of four clinical laboratory measurement methods for GGT and commutability of candidate reference materials.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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study was conducted to evaluate the progress in the standardization of the gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) to achieve metrological traceability of routine in vitro diagnosis (IVD) medical devices.
methodsWe collected 25 single fresh frozen serum samples for GGT analysis. Candidate reference materials (RMs), calibrators, internal quality controls (IQC), and external quality assessment (EQA) materials from the National Center for Clinical Laboratory (NCCL), Beijing Center for Clinical Laboratory (BCCL), and College of American Pathologists (CAP) were randomly added to these serum samples. A total of 42 samples were examined using IFCC reference method and four different IVD medical devices to perform the comparability and commutability study.
resultsThe four IVD medical devices achieved trueness assessment within the measurement range. Linear analysis showed the agreement of Siemens ADVIA 2400, Hitachi 7600-020/BioSino, Beckman AU 5800, and Roche Cobas 501 with the reference method. These assay pairs were comparable at the medical decision levels. The GGT in-house candidate RMs, and Beckmann and Roche calibrators were all within the limits of the 95% prediction intervals, the commutability of BioSino calibrators was indeterminate, and some internal and external quality controls were not commutable for comparisons of certain IVD medical devices vs the reference method.
conclusionsBy comparing with the reference method, we found that performance of GGT conventional measurement systems to be traceable to the higher order references was improved. The commutable materials for calibration and trueness controls of routine methods were significant to promote the standardization of GGT analysis.
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.