ArticleJournal of the Endocrine Society2024
Interference With VIP to Distinguish Between Real and False VIPoma: National Study From the French Endocrine Tumors Group.
Article in Journal of the Endocrine Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP)-secreting tumors (VIPomas) are digestive neuroendocrine tumors in which the hormonal secretion is life-threatening. Biological confirmation is obtained by demonstrating an elevation in plasma VIP, usually using radioimmunoassay (RIA). In some cases, analytical interference is suspected. We developed 3 different techniques to detect interference in VIP RIA. Methods: Three techniques were used: RIA after Sephadex column chromatography separation, RIA after polyethylene glycol precipitation, and Results: A total of 15 patients with FPV elevation and 9 RV patients were included. Interference was detected in all FPV patients vs none in RV. Clinical and biochemical parameters did not differ between FPV and RV patients, but VIP concentration in RIA was significantly higher in FPV patients than in RV patients (228 pmol/L vs 66 pmol/L, Conclusion: We developed 3 different laboratory techniques to reveal interference in RIA VIP assays. The diagnostic performance of all 3 was excellent. These techniques must be employed in cases of discordance between VIP elevation and clinical presentation.
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.