ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2024
Comparison of two methods for dimethylarginines quantification.
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.
- The Interplay between Nitrosative Stress, Inflammation, and Antioxidant Defense in Patients with Lichen Planus.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Both dimethylarginines are widely bound to chronic kidney disease (CKD). This study was focused to validate published LC-MS/MS method and compared the measured data with an immunoassay. Design and methods: The analysis was performed on a Dionex UltiMate 3000 UHPLC-Standard (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA) with an amaZon SL ion trap (Bruker, Billerica, Massachusetts, USA). Comparison was evaluated by using Passing Bablok regression and Bland Altman plot. Healthy volunteers (n = 40) were used for validation and as control group to patients group (n = 40) with different stages of CKD. Results: The results in healthy controls determined by the LC-MS/MS (ELISA) method were 0.52 ± 0.0892 with 95 % CI: 0.49-0.55 (0.61 ± 0.1213 with 95 % CI: 0.57-0.64) μmol/L for AD MA and 0.56 ± 0.0810 with 95 % CI: 0.53-0.58 (0.62 ± 0.0752 with 95 % CI: 0.57-0.65) μmol/L for SDMA. In the same way, the patient group values determined by the LC-MS/MS (ELISA) method were 0.82 ± 0.1604 with 95 % CI: 0.75-0.88 (1.06 ± 0.3002 with 95 % CI: 0.94-1.19) μmol/L and 2.14 ± 0.8778 with 95 % CI: 1.47-2.58 (1.65 ± 0.5160 with 95 % CI: 1.40-1.98) μmol/L for ADMA and SDMA, respectively. The correlation between the methods, expressed as the Spearman correlation coefficient (R), was 0.858 (0.8059) for ADMA (p < 0.0001) and 0.895 (0.9607) for SDMA (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: ADMA levels determined by the immunoassay were almost 30 % overestimated, in contrast to SDMA levels, which were 3 % underestimated. According to our findings, a better correlation could be obtained by simple sample dilution.
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.