ArticleBiochemia medica2020
Verification of automated latex-enhanced particle immunoturbidimetric D-Dimer assays on different analytical platforms and comparability of test results.
Article in Biochemia medica, 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.
- Development of a fully automated latex-enhanced immunoturbidimetric method for quantitative serum Lp(a) measurement.Biotechnology letters · 2025Article
- Preparation and Characterization of C-Reactive Protein Dual-Particle Latex-Enhanced Immunoturbidimetric Reagents.BME frontiers · 2024Article
- Performance evaluation between two automated biochemical analyzer systems: Roche Cobas 8000 and Mindray BS2000M.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2022Article
- Elevated D-dimer and Adverse In-hospital Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients and Synergism with Hyperglycemia.Infection and drug resistance · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of the study was the analytical verification of automated latex-enhanced particle immunoturbidimetric (LPIA) D-Dimer assay INNOVANCE D-dimer on Sysmex CS-5100 and Atellica COAG 360 analysers, and HemosIL D-dimer HS500 on ACL TOP 550, as well as the comparison with the enzyme-linked immunofluorescent assay (ELFA) on the miniVidas analyser. MATERIALS AND
methodsVerification included assessment of within-run and between-run precision, bias, measurement uncertainty (MU), verification of the cut-off, method comparison between all assessed assays, and the reference commercial ELFA VIDAS D-Dimer Exclusion II.
resultsWithin-run coefficients of variations (CVs) ranged from 1.6% (Atellica COAG 360) to 7.9% (ACL TOP 550), while between-run CVs ranged from 1.7% (Sysmex CS-5100) to 6.9% (Atellica COAG 360). Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were > 0.99 between LPIAs and ≥ 0.93 when comparing ELFA with LPIA. Passing-Bablok regression analysis yielded constant and proportional difference for comparison of ACL TOP 550 with both Sysmex CS-5100 and Atellica COAG360, and for miniVidas with Atellica COAG360. Small proportional difference was found between miniVidas and both Sysmex CS-5100 and ACL TOP 550. Calculated MUs using D-dimer HS 500 calibrator were 12.6% (Sysmex CS-5100) and 15.6% (Atellica COAG 360), while with INNOVANCE D-dimer calibrator 12.0% (Sysmex CS-5100), 10.0% (Atellica COAG 360) and 28.1% (ACL TOP 550). Excellent agreement of results was obtained, with occasional discrepancies near the cut-off. The cut-off (0.5 mg/L FEU) was confirmed.
conclusionsThe obtained results prove satisfactory analytical performance of LPIAs, their high comparability and almost equal discriminatory characteristics, suggesting them as a valid alternative to ELFA.
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.