Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39176390›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in molecular biosciences2024

Longitudinal evaluation of manufacturer-specific differences for high-sensitive CRP EQA results.

Nathalie Weiss, Laura Vierbaum, Marcel Kremser, Anne Kaufmann-Stoeck, Silke Kappler, Silvia Ballert, Kathrin Kabrodt, Klaus-Peter Hunfeld, Ingo Schellenberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in molecular biosciences, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Nathalie WeissINSTAND e.V., Society for Promoting Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratories e.V., Duesseldorf, Germany.
Laura VierbaumINSTAND e.V., Society for Promoting Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratories e.V., Duesseldorf, Germany.
Marcel KremserINSTAND e.V., Society for Promoting Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratories e.V., Duesseldorf, Germany.
Anne Kaufmann-StoeckINSTAND e.V., Society for Promoting Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratories e.V., Duesseldorf, Germany.
Silke KapplerINSTAND e.V., Society for Promoting Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratories e.V., Duesseldorf, Germany.
Silvia BallertInstitute of Bioanalytical Sciences (IBAS), Center of Life Sciences, Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Bernburg, Germany.
Kathrin KabrodtInstitute of Bioanalytical Sciences (IBAS), Center of Life Sciences, Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Bernburg, Germany.
Klaus-Peter HunfeldINSTAND e.V., Society for Promoting Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratories e.V., Duesseldorf, Germany.
Ingo SchellenbergINSTAND e.V., Society for Promoting Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratories e.V., Duesseldorf, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: C-reactive protein (CRP) is an established serum biomarker for different pathologies such as tissue injury and inflammatory events. One rising area of interest is the incorporation of low concentrations of CRP, so called high-sensitive (hs-) CRP, in the risk assessment and treatment monitoring of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Many research projects and the resulting meta-analyses have reported controversial results for the use of hs-CRP, especially in the risk assessment of CVDs. However, since these analyses used different assays to detect hs-CRP, it is important to assess the current level of assay harmonization. Methods: This paper analyzes data from 17 external quality assessment (EQA) surveys for hs-CRP conducted worldwide between 2018 and 2023. Each EQA survey consisted of two blinded samples. In 2020 the sample material changed from pooled serum to single-donor samples. The aim was to assess the current status of assay harmonization by a manufacturer-based approach, taking into consideration the clinical decision limits for hs-CRP risk-stratification of CVDs as well as the scatter of results. Results: Our analyses show that harmonization has increased in recent years from median differences of up to 50% to below 20%, with one exception that showed an increasing bias throughout the observed period. After changing sample materials from pools to single-donor samples, the coefficient of variation decreased to below 10% with one exception. Nevertheless, even these differences in the clinical setting could lead to disparate classification of patients depending on the assay used. Conclusion: While there was a positive trend towards harmonization, meta-analysis of different risk-score publications should stratify their analysis by assay to account for the manufacturer-specific differences observed in this paper. Furthermore, assays are currently traceable to different international standard preparations, which might have a negative impact on future harmonization.

Indexed as

cardiovascular diseasesexternal quality assessment scheme (EQA)harmonizationhsCRPproficiency testing (PT)

Identifiers

PMID39176390
PMCPMC11338768

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.