ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2021
A method for measuring the experimental resolution of laboratory assays (clinical biochemical, blood count, immunological, and qPCR) to evaluate analytical performance.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2021. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dissociation Phenomenon of Erythrocyte Agglutination and Its Application to Assay of Functional Activity of the Complement System in Clinical Laboratory.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2024Article
- A Flow Cytometry-Based Assay for the Measurement of Total Complement Activity in the Serum and Clinical Practice.Disease markers · 2022Article
- A method for measuring the experimental resolution of laboratory assays (clinical biochemical, blood count, immunological, and qPCR) to evaluate analytical performance.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe measurement method for experimental resolution and related data to evaluate analytical performance is poorly explored in clinical research. We established a method to measure the experimental resolution of clinical tests, including biochemical tests, automatic hematology analyzer methods, immunoassays, chemical experiments, and qPCR, to evaluate their analytical performance.
methodsSerially diluted samples in equal proportions were measured, and correlation analysis was performed between the relative concentration and the measured value. Results were accepted for p ≤ 0.01 of the correlation coefficient. The minimum concentration gradient (eg, 10%) was defined as the experimental resolution. For this method, the smaller the value, the higher the experimental resolution and the better the analytical performance.
resultsThe experimental resolution of the most common biochemical indices reached 10%, with some even reaching 1%. The results of most counting experiments showed experimental resolution up to 10%, whereas the experimental resolution of the classical chemical assays reached 1%. Unexpectedly, the experimental resolution of more sensitive assays, such as immunoassays was only 25% when using the manual method and 10% for qPCR.
conclusionThis study established a method for measuring the experimental resolution of laboratory assays and provides a new index for evaluating the reliability of methods in clinical laboratories.
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.