ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2024
Performance evaluation of the LumiraDx quantitative microfluidic point-of-care CRP test.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early diagnosis and treatment of leptospirosis: Optimizing clinical outcomes.The Journal of infection · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
C-reactive protein (CRP) is an established acute-phase marker for infection, inflammation and tissue injury, used to guide clinical decision-making in primary and secondary care. This study compared the analytical performance of the quantitative microfluidic point-of-care LumiraDx CRP Test to a laboratory-based reference method (Siemens RCRP Flex assay on the Dimension® Xpand®) and evaluated equivalence of sample matrices (blood versus plasma) in point-of-care settings using samples from patients presenting with symptoms of infection or inflammation. The LumiraDx CRP Test demonstrated close agreement with the lab reference test (range, 5.1 to 245.2 mg/L, r = 0.992, slope = 0.998, intercept = -0.476; n = 205) and notable agreement between fingerstick and venous blood and plasma (r = 0.974-0.983; n = 44). Paired replicate precision had mean coefficients of variation of 6.4 % (plasma), 6.6 % (capillary direct) and 8.1 % (venous blood); overall error rates were 2.9 %. The quantitative LumiraDx CRP Test showed robust analytical performance across sample matrices and close agreement compared to the laboratory reference method when used at the point of care.
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.