ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Clinical and Analytical Comparison of Monoclonal and Polyclonal Immunoassays for Fecal Pancreatic Elastase.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNumerous immunoassays have been commercialized to determine pancreatic elastase (PE) in feces in screening for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI), but how the different assays compare to one another is controversial, especially in the context that all methods use the same cut-off values for interpreting the results obtained on the presence or absence of EPI or the degree of insufficiency if it is present. Our aim was to analytically verify a new method for determining PE, compare the results with a previous method, and verify the declared cut-off values for interpretation of the results.
methodsPE in the stool was assayed using a previous monoclonal enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay ("ScheBo ELISA") and a new polyclonal particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay ("Bühlmann PETIA"). The direct method comparison of two immunoassays was performed in 40 samples. Clinical comparisons were conducted against each other for the binary determination of "abnormal/normal" elastase levels and the three-way determination of "severe/moderate/no" EPI in 56 samples. The indirect comparison method used external quality assessment (EQA) data to compare the monoclonal and polyclonal immunoassays for PE, and additionally compare the monoclonal ScheBo ELISA to a monoclonal chemiluminescence immunoassay ("DiaSorin CLIA").
resultsPrecision in the series and intra-laboratory precision for Bühlmann PETIA met the manufacturer's specifications for the concentration range of limit/lower values and the range of normal values. The Bühlmann PETIA immunoassay on different analytical platforms yielded comparable results and nearly perfect agreement in the case of three-way classification (kappa = 0.89 with 95%CI from 0.79 to 1.00. ScheBo ELISA tends to generate higher values of pancreatic elastase than the Bühlmann PETIA; agreement between the methods was moderate in the case of binary classification (kappa = 0.43; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.62), and substantial in the case of three-way classification (kappa = 0.62; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.75). EQA data analysis showed a statistically significant difference between ScheBo ELISA and Bühlmann PETIA peer groups (
conclusionThe ScheBo ELISA and Bühlmann PETIA do not appear to be commutable in the analytical and clinical context. Our data address a discordance between different mono- and polyclonal immunoassays for pancreatic elastase and the potential of misclassification using its universal cut-off values in screening suspected patients for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency.
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.