ArticleBiochemia medica2023
Analytical verification of the Dymind D7-CRP automated analyser.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: The aim of this study was to perform a verification of the Dymind D7-CRP automated analyser and compare it with established analysers. Materials and methods: Analytical verification included estimation of repeatability, between run precision, within-laboratory precision, and bias in control samples with low, normal and high levels. The acceptance criteria for analytical verification were defined using the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) 2019 Biological Variation Database. Method comparison between the Dymind D7-CRP and the Sysmex XN1000 for haematological parameters and the Dymind D7-CRP and the Beckman Coulter AU680 for CRP values was performed on 40 patient samples. Results: Analytical verification criteria were adequately met with the exception of monocyte count for repeatability and within-laboratory precision (13.4% and 11.5%, respectively, acceptance criteria 10.1%) and measurement uncertainty (23.0, acceptance criteria 20.0%) at low level, eosinophil count for BIAS at the low level (37.7%, acceptance criteria 25.2%), basophil count (BAS) for BIAS at the high level (14.2%, acceptance criteria 10.9%), and mean platelet volume (MPV) for repeatability (4.2% and 6.8%), between run precision (2.2% and 4.7%), within-laboratory precision (4.0% and 7.3%) (acceptance criteria 1.7%), and measurement uncertainty (8.0 and 14.6%, acceptance criteria 3.4%) at both the low and high concentrations. Method comparison showed no clinically significant constant or proportional differences for all parameters except BAS and MPV. Conclusion: The analytical verification of the Dymind D7-CRP showed adequate analytical characteristics. The Dymind D7-CRP can be used interchangeably with the Sysmex XN-1000 for all parameters tested, except BAS and MPV, and with the Beckman Coulter AU-680 for the determination of CRP.
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.