ArticleContraception2025
Comparison of etonogestrel bioanalytical assay results in plasma and serum within and across laboratories.
Article in Contraception, 2025. 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare performance characteristics of etonogestrel bioanalytical assays across laboratories. STUDY
designWe conducted a blinded, six laboratory study: five academic laboratories and one contracted commercial laboratory (reference). Etonogestrel was quantitated at each laboratory in both prepared serum and/or plasma samples of six known etonogestrel concentrations, and in 60 clinical samples from participants using etonogestrel-containing contraceptive methods. Per regulatory guidance, laboratory accuracy (percent bias) and precision (coefficient of variation; CV) were defined as ±15% of the nominal prepared concentration. We compared inter- and intra-laboratory agreement using a Kendall's Tau-B and Passing-Bablok regression.
resultsFor prepared samples, six laboratories analyzed serum and three laboratories analyzed plasma. All etonogestrel results were within ±15% for accuracy across all concentrations at four labs, including the reference laboratory. All labs demonstrated high precision, with only one occurrence of CV >15%. We found a positive association between prepared plasma and serum etonogestrel results (Kendall's Tau-B 0.80-0.88). For clinical samples, five laboratories analyzed serum and three laboratories analyzed plasma. Compared to the reference laboratory, inter-laboratory serum etonogestrel concentrations were positively correlated (Kendall's Tau-B 0.76-0.95). Proportional bias was observed, meaning individual lab etonogestrel results were consistently higher (slope estimates 0.78-0.95) or lower (slope estimates 1.05-1.10) than the reference laboratory. In clinical samples, intra-laboratory results were well associated between plasma and serum (Kendall's Tau-B 0.92-0.96).
conclusionsThere was good intra-laboratory agreement, irrespective of sample matrix; however, there was inter-laboratory variability in etonogestrel results. Differences between laboratory results should be considered when comparing etonogestrel pharmacokinetics across studies. IMPLICATIONS: Etonogestrel concentrations were highly precise within each laboratory and were comparable between serum and plasma. Results varied between laboratories (5-28% higher to 5-9% lower compared to the Organon commercial laboratory). To minimize variability, we recommend utilizing a single laboratory that conducts routine proficiency testing for etonogestrel analysis within a study.
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.