ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2022
Analysis of current status of quantitative detection of biomarkers for liver fibrosis in Clinical labs in China.
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 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- New Biomarkers in Liver Fibrosis: A Pass through the Quicksand?Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Analysis of current status of quantitative detection of biomarkers for liver fibrosis in Clinical labs in China.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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo explore the quality control and implementation of the quantitative detection of liver fibrosis biomarkers, laminin (LN), collagen IV (Col Ⅳ), procollagen III amino-terminal propeptide (PⅢNP), hyaluronic acid (HA), and cholyglycine (CG), in China.
methodsTwo quality control products were measured in different laboratories using different measurement methods and reagents, and the acquired results were subjected to analysis. The quantitative detection technique was based on the conventional assessment criteria, with a target value ±30% being employed.
resultsHundred labs were involved in the External Quality Assessment with 88 laboratories completing the assessment, and the pass rates were 84%, 80.2%, 67.5%, 77.3%, and 58.3% for HA, LN, PⅢNP, Col Ⅳ, and CG, respectively. Chemiluminescence immunoassay was used most for HA (90.1%), LN (90.1%), PⅢNP (87.9%), and Col Ⅳ (82.9%) determination, whereas the chemiluminescence immunoassay (31.6%), latex-enhanced immunoturbidimetry (36.7%), and homogeneous enzyme immunoassay (26.7%) were used for CG determination. The coefficients of variation for HA, LN, PⅢNP, Col Ⅳ, and CG in different laboratories were 3.3%-19.49%, 1.74%-38.81%, 1.97%-41.29%, 2.85%-41.69%, and 2.71%-41.8%, respectively.
conclusionThe clinical quantitative detection of liver fibrosis biomarkers is highly performed in China. The existing problems are that there are many manufacturers producing reagents and instruments, the quality of reagents is uneven, the specificity and sensitivity of reagents are greatly different, the comparability of results of various systems is poor, and the accuracy and consistency between different systems are lacking. All above underscores the critical importance of EQA in improving and monitoring the identification of biomarkers for liver fibrosis.
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.