ArticleFrontiers in immunology2024
External quality assurance program for diagnostic complement laboratories: evaluation of the results of the past seven years.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- International Guideline on the Diagnosis and Management of Pediatric Patients With Hereditary Angioedema.Allergy · 2026Guideline
- Characterizing Properdin-Inhibited C3 Nephritic Factors in Patients with Complement-Mediated Kidney Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Complement Inhibition in the Clinic: Are We Doing Enough to Protect Patients From Infection?European journal of immunology · 2026Review
- Point-of-care assessment of complement activation in the ICU: a feasibility study of rapid terminal complement complex detection in critical illness.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The complement external quality assurance (EQA) program was first organized in 2010 by a group of researchers working in diagnostic complement laboratories. Starting in 2016, INSTAND e.V., a German, non-profit interdisciplinary scientific medical society dedicated to providing expert EQA programs for medical laboratories, started organizing the EQAs for complement diagnostic laboratories together with the same group of experienced scientists and doctors who also work as EQA experts. The aim of the current work is to provide descriptive analysis of the past seven years' complement EQA results and evaluate timeline changes in proficiency testing. Methods: Each year, in March and October, blinded samples (normal, pathological) were sent to the participating diagnostic laboratories, where complement parameters were evaluated exactly as in daily routine samples. Since no reference method/target values exist for these parameters, and participants used different units for measurement, the reported results were compared to the stable mean (Algorithm A) of the participants using the same method/measurement units. A reported result was qualified as "passed" if it fell into the 30-50% evaluation/target range around the mean of reported results (depending on the given parameter). Results: While the number of participating laboratories has increased in the past years (from around 120 to 347), the number of complement laboratories providing multiple determinations remained mostly unchanged (around 30 worldwide). C3, C4, C1-inhibitor antigen and activity determinations provided the best proficiency results, with >90% passing quotas in the past years, independent of the applied method. Determination of the functional activity of the three activation pathways was good in general, but results showed large variance, especially with the pathological samples. Complement factor C1q and regulators FH and FI are determined by only a few laboratories, with variable outcomes (in general in the 85-90% pass range). Activation products sC5b-9 and Bb were determined in 30 and 10 laboratories, respectively, with typical passing quotas in the 70-90% range, without a clear tendency over the past years. Conclusion: With these accumulated data from the past seven years, it is now possible to assess sample-, method-, and evaluation related aspects to further improve proficiency testing and protocolize diagnostic complement determinations.
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.