ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2024
Analytical performance evaluation of a new integrated clinical chemistry and immunoassay analyzer.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epidemiological Patterns and Determinants of Subclinical and Overt Hypothyroidism in a Clinical Cohort from the Hail Region, Saudi Arabia: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional and Cluster Analysis Study.Clinics and practice · 2026Article
- Analytical and Workflow Performance of a High-Throughput Chemiluminescent Immunoassay System in a Clinical Laboratory.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2026Article
- Advancing clinical biochemistry: addressing gaps and driving future innovations.Frontiers in medicine · 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
Background: Clinical laboratories perform a wide range of tests that are used by healthcare professionals to guide medical decision making. Use of automated analyzers in the clinical laboratory can improve patient care by not only reducing the turn-around-time (TAT) of results but also improving accuracy of the reported results by reducing human error. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance characteristics of a new automated laboratory instrument, the Atellica® CI Analyzer, Model 1900, over a 3-month period in a European laboratory setting. Methods: Analytical performance of 17 analytes (13 chemistry and four immunochemistry) was assessed by evaluating repeatability and within-laboratory precision using anonymized remnant serum samples. Method comparison studies were performed on the Atellica CI Analyzer and the Roche cobas® 6000. Results: Excellent precision was observed with coefficients of variation (CVs) less than 2 % for repeatability and less than 3 % within-laboratory imprecision for most analytes. Comparison of select assays with the cobas 6000 system resulted in correlation coefficients ranging from 0.980 to 1.000. Conclusion: This is the first reported evaluation of the Atellica CI Analyzer in a clinical laboratory setting. The strong analytical performance of the Atellica CI Analyzer demonstrates that this instrument is suitable for routine clinical use.
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.