ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2022
Analytical performance of a new immunoturbidimetric D-dimer assay and comparison with available assays.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- D-dimer Testing in Pulmonary Embolism with a Focus on Potential Pitfalls: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Analytical performance of a new immunoturbidimetric D-dimer assay and comparison with available assays.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe routine D-dimer quantification to exclude venous thromboembolism has led to the development of many assays, the usefulness of which depends on their reliability and performance.
objectiveWe evaluated the analytical performances of the immunoturbidimetric Yumizen G DDi 2 assay (HORIBA Medical, Montpellier, France) performed on the Yumizen G800 analyzer and compared it with other available D-dimer assays.
methodsWithin-run and between-run imprecision were evaluated using low- and high-level quality-control plasma samples. Interference due to hemolysis, icterus, lipemia, rheumatoid factor (RF), or heterophilic antibodies (human antimouse antibodies [HAMAs]) was evaluated by spiking plasma samples with hemolysate, bilirubin, Intralipid, RF, or HAMAs. The measurements obtained with the different D-dimer assays were compared using Passing-Bablok regression analysis and Bland-Altman plot method, using fresh citrated plasma samples collected from 66 consecutive routine patients with a wide range of D-dimer concentrations.
resultsWithin- and between-run variation coefficients for the Yumizen G DDi 2 assay ranged from 1.7% to 5.8% and from 2.8% to 5.5%, respectively. Hemolysis and icterus did not have any effect up to 10 g/L hemoglobin and 300 mg/L bilirubin. Lipemia seemed to generate an underestimation of D-dimer concentration when the Intralipid concentration was >5 g/L. RF and HAMAs did not have any effect. The Passing-Bablok and Bland-Altman analyses showed small differences with other available D-dimer assays, which were more pronounced with increasing values.
conclusionsIts analytical performances and main technical features indicate that the new Yumizen G DDi 2 assay is suitable for the rapid quantification of D-dimer in clinical hemostasis 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.