ArticleHeliyon2024
Ensure the accuracy and consistency of biochemical analyzer test results: Chemometrics for instrument and inter-instrument item comparison in Chinese hospital laboratory.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond the Numbers: Assessing Clinical Risk Associated with Significant Magnesium Assay Bias.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Medical laboratory data-based models: opportunities, obstacles, and solutions.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Comparison of Autolumo A2000 Plus and Architect i2000 for detection of hepatitis B virus serological markers.Heliyon · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biochemical analyzers are vital instruments that utilize the principle of photoelectric colorimetry to quantify a specific chemical composition in body fluids. This analysis provides critical data for the diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and overall health status of various diseases in clinical practice. However, the performance of a biochemical analyzer can vary significantly between different brands or over time within the same brand. Therefore, it is imperative to regularly assess the performance of the analyzer to ensure consistent results for longitudinal studies and to maintain day-to-day data consistency. Additionally, when multiple analyzers are utilized, it is necessary to evaluate the performance of each instrument to ensure accurate results across multiple platforms. In this study, we developed and verified an experimental evaluation scheme for the analytical performance of the instrument, chemometrics for biochemical analyzers, utilizing national reference materials and patient sera as the experimental subjects. We evaluated the performance of the optical system, temperature control system, sample-adding system, and detection system to confirm the feasibility of this scheme. We also compared the analytical performance of different brands of biochemical analyzers for routine biochemical tests, such as liver function, kidney function, ion, blood lipids, blood glucose, and myocardial enzyme spectrum. Using the AU 5400 as a control and the ADVIA 2400 as the comparison system, the relative variation in inter-instrument comparison data was found to be acceptable at the clinical medicine decision level. In conclusion, the performance of a biochemical analyzer can vary significantly between different brands or over time within the same brand. Regular evaluations are necessary to ensure accurate and consistent results across different analyzers. This study provides a feasible scheme for evaluating the analytical performance of biochemical analyzers that can be used to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the results of different brands of automatic chemical analyzers in the laboratory.
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.