ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2022
Comparison of IL-6 measurement methods with a special emphasis on COVID-19 patients according to equipment and sample type.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of personalized vitamin DBritish journal of cancer · 2026Trial
- Comparing nanobody and aptamer-based capacitive sensing for detection of interleukin-6 (IL-6) at physiologically relevant levels.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2023Article
- Comparison of IL-6 measurement methods with a special emphasis on COVID-19 patients according to equipment and sample type.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterleukin-6 (IL-6) is a multifunctional cytokine associated with various diseases, including coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Although IL-6 levels can be assessed using serum samples, use of the AFIAS (Boditech Med Inc.) automated immunoassay analyzer enables quick and simple measurement of IL-6 levels in both serum and whole blood specimens. This study aimed to assess the correlation between IL-6 measurements obtained from the AFIAS IL-6 assay and Elecsys IL-6 assay (Roche Diagnostics). Additionally, utilization of the AFIAS IL-6 assay was evaluated.
methodsThe IL-6 levels from 113 serum samples quantified using two assay systems were evaluated for their degree of correlation. Meanwhile, the linearity, analytical sensitivity, and precision/reproducibility of the AFIAS IL-6 assay were also assessed.
resultsQuantification of IL-6 with the AFIAS IL-6 and Elecsys IL-6 assays showed excellent agreement (kappa 0.802) and were found to be correlated (y = -0.2781 + 1.068x; 95% confidence interval: 1.007-1.124). AFIAS IL-6 showed good analytical performances. IL-6 levels were significantly higher in deceased patients compared to those with non-complicated disease and those who were intubated (p = 0.002 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Finally, IL-6 levels more accurately predicted poor prognosis in patients, than did C-reactive protein (area under the curve, 0.716 vs. 0.634).
conclusionThe overall analytical performance of the AFIAS assay was comparable to that of the Elecsys IL-6 assay. In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the AFIAS may be an attractive tool for measuring IL-6 levels.
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.