ArticleCureus2024
Comparative Study of Laboratory Versus Bedside High-Sensitivity Troponin I in the Emergency Medicine Department of a Tertiary Care Hospital in India.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Aptasensor-based point-of-care detection of cardiac troponin biomarkers for diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction.The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2025Review
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
backgroundEvaluating high-sensitivity troponin I levels in emergency medicine is critical for diagnosing acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This study aims to evaluate the central laboratory versus bedside troponin I test in the emergency department of a tertiary care center. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis prospective observational study was conducted at Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Pune, Maharashtra, India, from October to December 2023. Patient samples were analyzed in the central laboratory using the Dimension EXL 200 (Siemens® Healthcare Diagnostics Inc., Erlangen, Germany) as the gold standard test and through point-of-care testing using the TriageTrue® (Quidel Corporation, San Diego, CA) high-sensitivity troponin I kit, which was run on the Triage® MeterPro® device (Quidel Corporation, San Diego, CA). This device quantitatively determines troponin I in ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid-anticoagulated whole blood and plasma specimens. The results were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 18 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). An unpaired t-test was performed to compare the difference in time taken using the two testing methods.
resultThe mean time for obtaining troponin I results was substantially shorter with bedside testing (14.91 minutes, standard deviation (SD) = 0.5) than with laboratory testing (119.1 minutes, SD = 5.03). Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference (t = -172.36, p < 0.001). A chi-square test was conducted to assess the disparity between the two testing methods, yielding a chi-square value of 32.64 and a p value of 0.00001, indicating a significant difference between bedside testing and laboratory testing.
conclusionThe bedside high-sensitivity troponin I test offers a considerable advantage over laboratory testing regarding turnaround time within the emergency medicine department in India. This rapid diagnostic capability is crucial for timely management, which is beneficial for patients inconclusive of acute coronary syndrome-like non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). It is also cost-effective. It also reduces the emergency boarding time and may reduce the number of unnecessary admissions in healthcare facilities.
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.