Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37363432›Full record

ArticleAdvances in laboratory medicine2022

Beyond the method change in clinical practice: evaluation of insulin-like growth factor I assay.

Paula Sienes Bailo, Marta Fabre Estremera, José Cuenca Alcocel, María Ángeles César Márquez

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paula Sienes BailoDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Miguel Servet University Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain; and Aragon Institute of Health Research (IIS Aragon), Zaragoza, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3978-7384
Marta Fabre EstremeraDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Miguel Servet University Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain; and Aragon Institute of Health Research (IIS Aragon), Zaragoza, Spain.
José Cuenca AlcocelDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Miguel Servet University Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain.
María Ángeles César MárquezDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Miguel Servet University Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain.
Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet · ESInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria Aragón · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) is the preferred biomarker for diagnosing and monitoring growth-related disorders but its serum quantification presents several difficulties since different IGF-I assays still leads to different IGF-I concentrations, especially when results are either above or below the normal range. Methods: We conducted a prospective study between November and December 2020 at a tertiary University Hospital with 212 serum samples to determine the analytical performance of the IGF-I assay on the Cobas e411 (Roche Diagnostics) and compare it with that of the Immulite 2000XPi (Siemens). Results: In this work, we report for the first time the existence of discrepancies between IGF-I levels measured by Immulite 2000XPi and Cobas e411. Deming regression model provided a slope of 1.570 (95% CI: 1.395-1.745) and an intercept of -58.591 (95% CI: -89.151 to -28.030), with R Conclusions: Our data can alert clinicians and laboratory professionals of this situation and avoid misinterpretation of increased IGF-I levels as a therapeutic failure rather than as a problem associated with this method change.

Indexed as

growth hormoneimmunoassayinsulin-like growth factor Imethod comparison

Identifiers

PMID37363432
PMCPMC10197437
OpenAlexW4293262049

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.