ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Performance of the Abbott Architect Immuno-Chemiluminometric NT-proBNP Assay.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changes in Subclinical Biomarkers of Myocardial Injury and Inflammation and SARS-COV-2 Serological Analyses in a Cohort of Community-dwelling Adults.Research square · 2026Article
- Toward next-generation BNP/NT-proBNP biosensors: multiplexed detection, biofouling control, and digital health integration.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Incident HFpEF and time-dependent changes in markers of LVDD severity in women and men with preclinical LVDD.Open heart · 2025Article
- NT-proBNP course during MIS-C post-COVID-19: an observational study.European journal of pediatrics · 2024Observational
- Progress in the Optical Sensing of Cardiac Biomarkers.Biosensors · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We evaluated the performance of the Abbott N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) assay against the Roche NT-proBNP immunoassay across two sites. Methods: Precision, linearity, and sensitivity studies were performed. A combined method of comparison and regression analysis was performed between the Roche and Abbott assays using samples from both sites (n = 494). To verify biotin interference, lyophilised biotin powder was reconstituted and spiked into serum samples at two medical decision levels (final concentration 500/4250 ng/mL) and compared to controls. NT-proBNP was also measured in anonymised leftover sera (n = 388) in a cardio-renal healthy population and stratified into three age bands—<50 (n = 145), 50−75 (n = 183) and >75 (n = 60). Results: Between-run precision (CV%) for NT-proBNP was 4.17/4.50 (139.5/142.0 pg/mL), 3.83/2.17 (521.6/506.3), and 4.60/2.51 (5053/4973), respectively. The assay was linear from 0.7−41,501 pg/mL. The limit of blank/quantitation was 1.2/7.9 pg/mL. The assay showed no interference from biotin up to 4250 ng/mL. Passing−Bablok regression analysis showed excellent agreement between the two assays (r = 0.999, 95% CI 0.999 to 0.999, p < 0.0001). The Roche assay had a slightly persistent, negative bias across different levels of NT-proBNP. ESC age cut-offs for diagnosing acute heart failure are applicable for the Abbott assay, with the median NT-proBNP of subjects < 50 years old at 43.0 pg/mL (range 4.9−456 pg/mL), 50−75 years old at 95.1 pg/mL (range 10.5−1079 pg/mL), and >75 years old at 173.1 pg/mL (range 23.2−1948 pg/mL). Conclusions: The Abbott Architect NT-proBNP assay has good performance that agrees with the manufacturer’s specifications. ESC/AHA recommended NT-proBNP age groups for acute heart failure diagnosis are applicable to this assay.
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.