ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2022
Comparison of a novel automated DiaSys procalcitonin immunoassay with four different BRAHMS-partnered immunoassays.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comment to: Extensive analytical evaluation of the performances of the new DiaSys PCT assay and comparison with Elecsys B·R·A·H·M·S PCT test on Roche Cobas and B·R·A·H·M·S PCT-sensitive Kryptor.Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Procalcitonin (PCT) is an important biomarker of sepsis and respiratory infections. Various automated immunoassays for measuring PCT in patient plasma are available in medical laboratories. However, due to a lack of international reference material for PCT, the assays are not always comparable. Design and methods: In this study, we compared a new turbidimetric immunoassay from DiaSys, measured on the Abbott Architect c16000 and Alinity c, with four BRAHMS-associated chemiluminescence immunoassays (Abbott Architect i2000SR, Alinity i, Roche Cobas e411 and DiaSorin Liaison XL) using 120 random patient plasma samples from the clinical laboratory routine at the University Medical Center Goettingen. Results: The DiaSys assay showed clear differences as compared to the BRAHMS-associated assays when measured on Architect c: i.e. 58% positive mean bias vs. Architect i, 67% vs. Cobas and 23% vs. Liaison. As a result, additional 19% our patients would have a suspected bacterial infection, when using PCT values from the DiaSys assay and commonly accepted decision limits. A crosscheck of the DiaSys calibrator on the BRAHMS-associated systems showed a low recovery of the calibrator material (approx. 50%). Conclusions: Overall, this study shows significant differences between the DiaSys and BRAHMS-associated assays. This could be attributed to a potential DiaSys calibrator problem. This highlights the need for an international reference material for harmonization of the PCT assays.
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.