ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Performance Evaluation of Automated Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) Analyzers in a Multicentric Study.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analytical Agreement Between the Vision C Automated ESR Analyzer and the Manual Westergren Reference Method: A Prospective Method Comparison Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Clinical and Clinico-Pathological Observations of the Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate in Dogs Affected by Leishmaniosis and Monitored During Antileishmanial Treatment.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate Reference Intervals Determined via VES-MATIC 5 and CUBE 30 Touch with Respect to the Westergren Method.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundErythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) is an easy test used to diagnose and monitor inflammatory and infectious diseases. The aim of this study was the evaluation of the performance of three ESR automated analyzers, VES-MATIC 5, CUBE 30 TOUCH, and MINI-CUBE, involving four Italian polyclinics in Rome, Siena, Como, and Arezzo, as well as inter-site variability assessment to detect possible device-dependent and operator-dependent influences.
methodsAccuracy analysis was carried out by analyzing the same samples with all three instruments and comparing them with the Westergren method. Precision was assessed with quality control material through intra-run and inter-run precision. Repeatability was estimated by reanalyzing fresh blood samples belonging to three ESR ranges (low, intermediate, and high) six times.
resultsThe results showed a strong correlation (Spearman coefficients R
conclusionsThe study proved that all three automated instruments offer optimal performance for accuracy and precision and are suitable for both large and small facilities without influences of the laboratory environment.
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.