ArticleDiagnosis (Berlin, Germany)2025
Three-way comparison of different ESR measurement methods and analytical performance assessment of TEST1 automated ESR analyzer.
Article in Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany), 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesValidation and performance assessment of novel ESR analyzer is required before implementation. The objective of this study was to assess the correlation between three ESR measurement methods. Full validation and performance assessment of an alternate method (TEST1) were also evaluated.
methodsThree-way correlation assessment for the Westergren (WG), modified Westregren (Mixrate), and alternate (TEST1) methods were performed. Analytical performance of TEST1 including precision, carryover, sample stability, potential interferences as well as effect of hematocrit (Hct) and mean corpuscular volume (MCV) were also determined.
resultsStrong correlation between three ESR measurement methods were observed. Correlation coefficient (r) was 0.902, 0.977, and 0.949 for WG vs. TEST1, WG vs. Mixrate, and TEST1 vs. Mixrate, respectively with absolute bias <5 mm. For TEST1, precision and carryover were within the manufacturer's claim. Samples were stable upto 24 h and 48 h when they were stored at room temperature or 2-8 °C, respectively. No effect of trigyceride and cholesterol was observed. In low Hct samples, no significant different between the results obtained from Fabry's formula corrected WG values and from TEST1.
conclusionsThree-way comparison study yielded a strong correlation between methods. As part of the method validation before implementing a new analyzer, full validation of TEST1 showed that all validated parameters met the manufacturer's specifications. A negative bias was observed but remains within the acceptable criteria. Difference in values for samples with low hematocrit were noted, but these can be corrected by Fabry's formula applied to the values from WG method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39661722What 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.