Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35860388›Full record

ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2022

Comparison of ADVIA Centaur ultra-sensitive and high-sensitive assays for troponin I in serum.

Joško Osredkar, Teja Fabjan, Kristina Kumer, Jure Tršan, Laura Poljančič, Miha Košir, Pia Vovk, Nada Snoj, Petra Finderle, Hugon Možina

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joško OsredkarUniversity Medical Centre Ljubljana, Institute of Clinical Chemistry and Biochemistry, Zaloška c.002, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Teja FabjanUniversity Medical Centre Ljubljana, Institute of Clinical Chemistry and Biochemistry, Zaloška c.002, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Kristina KumerUniversity Medical Centre Ljubljana, Institute of Clinical Chemistry and Biochemistry, Zaloška c.002, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Jure TršanUniversity of Ljubljana, Medical Faculty, Vrazov trg 2, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Laura PoljančičUniversity Medical Centre Ljubljana, Institute of Radiology, Zaloška c.002, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Miha KoširUniversity Medical Centre Ljubljana, Division of Internal Medicine, Medical Emergency Unit, Zaloška c.002, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Pia VovkUniversity Medical Centre Ljubljana, Division of Surgery, Department of Anaesthetics and Surgical Intensive Care, Zaloška c.002, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Nada SnojUniversity Medical Centre Ljubljana, Institute of Clinical Chemistry and Biochemistry, Zaloška c.002, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Petra FinderleUniversity Medical Centre Ljubljana, Institute of Clinical Chemistry and Biochemistry, Zaloška c.002, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Hugon MožinaUniversity of Ljubljana, Medical Faculty, Vrazov trg 2, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Ljubljana University Medical Centre · SIUniversity of Ljubljana · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiac troponin I (cTnI) is a standard biomarker for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). While older, ultra-sensitive cTnI (us-cTnI) assays use the 99th percentile as the reference threshold, newer high-sensitive cTnI (hs-cTnI) assays use the limit of detection or functional sensitivity instead. However, little has been done to systematically compare these two methods. The present study also served as a validation of hs-cTnI in our laboratory. Here, we compared the results obtained from the blood serum obtained from 8810 patients using the us-cTnI and the hs-cTnI assays run in tandem on the ADVIA Centaur XP analyser. We found that in 2279 samples the concentration of cTnI measured with the ultra-sensitive method was below the detection limit, while with the high-sensitive method, only 540 were below the detection limit. We also compared results from these assays with the ultimate diagnosis of a subset of individuals. The analysis of the results below cut-off with the ultra-sensitive method showed that this method would not detect 96 cases related to heart disorder. Overall, the main finding of our research is that hs-cTnI is the preferable option and is able to be deployed effectively in the laboratory setting.

Indexed as

Acute coronary syndromeacute coronary syndrome, ACSacute myocardial infarction, AMIcardiac troponin I, cTnIchronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPDcoefficient of variation, CVconfidence interval, CIfunctional sensitivity, LoQhigh-sensitive cTnI, hs-cTnIlimit of blank, LoBlimit of detection, LoDMyocardial infarctionTroponin Iultra-sensitive cTnI, us-cTnIupper reference of normal, URLVerification

Identifiers

PMID35860388
PMCPMC9289728
OpenAlexW4285096834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.