ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Analytical evaluation of the performances of point-of-care and benchtop procalcitonin assays in comparison with the B⋅R⋅A⋅H⋅M⋅S PCT sensitive KRYPTOR assay.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Procalcitonin (PCT) is increasingly utilized in clinical laboratories, leading to the proliferation of commercial PCT assays. However, not all of these assays are traceable to the B⋅R⋅A⋅H⋅M⋅S PCT standard, which is integral to established PCT clinical algorithms. This study evaluates the suitability of three non-B⋅R⋅A⋅H⋅M⋅S PCT assays for the application of these algorithms. Methods: The study assessed PCT assays from Wondfo (PCT-W), Getein (PCT-G), and Snibe (PCT-S), comparing them to the B⋅R⋅A⋅H⋅M⋅S PCT sensitive KRYPTOR assay (PCT-KR). Analytical performance, including linearity, imprecision, and recovery, was evaluated. Additionally, a method comparison study involving 350 routine serum samples was conducted to assess agreement, bias, and correlation with the KRYPTOR assay. Results: The KRYPTOR assay exhibited a maximum imprecision of 4.65%, while Wondfo, Getein, and Snibe showed higher imprecision at 8.38, 10.25, and 15.67%, respectively. Wondfo and Getein assays exceeded the maximum allowable deviation from linearity, and the Snibe assay failed the recovery assessment. Passing-Bablok regressions for low-range samples indicated significant bias for Wondfo (PCT-W = 0.663 PCT-KR + 0.076) and Getein (PCT-G = 0.838 PCT-KR-0.06). Agreement with the KRYPTOR assay was Kc = 0.83 and Kc = 0.87 for Wondfo and Getein, respectively, with substantial agreement in lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) at Kc = 0.78 and Kc = 0.65. The Snibe assay showed better overall agreement (PCT-S = 1.002 PCT-KR-0.069), with Kc = 0.92 for sepsis and Kc = 0.76 for LRTI. Conclusion: Despite high overall agreement with the KRYPTOR assay, the evaluated assays (Wondfo, Getein, and Snibe) exhibit insufficient analytical performance at low PCT concentrations, which may limit their reliability in the diagnosis and management of sepsis and LRTI.
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.