ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2025
Article in Annals of laboratory 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: : An international reference measurement laboratory network for creatinine (Cr) is lacking; therefore, Korea developed an independent evaluation and certification system. The Methods: : The program was designed to evaluate analytical systems, including all reagent lots, calibrators, and instrument models, twice annually. Bias, imprecision, total error (TE), and linearity were evaluated based on established acceptance criteria. A post-certification process allows submission for a second challenge and validation of corrective actions. Results: : Between 2017 and 2023, 489 analytical systems were evaluated. Average acceptance rates for bias, imprecision, TE, and linearity were 70.8%, 95.9%, 87.7%, and 87.8%, respectively. The lowest acceptance rate for bias evaluation was 8.7% for the kinetic Jaffe method without compensation in 2018. Over the 7-year period, the mean absolute percentage bias (absBias%), coefficient of variation (CV), and TE were 4.62%, 1.37%, and 7.29%, respectively. The highest absBias% (7.94%) was observed in the 0.0 ≤ Cr < 1.0 target value range. Since 2019, a consistent reduction in absBias% has been observed. Conclusions: : This program is a pioneering response to the absence of a global certification program for Cr assays. It offers significant advantages, including comprehensive evaluations, fee-free participation, and a robust post-certification process. Continuous participation and improvement efforts by manufacturers have contributed to enhanced accuracy in Cr assays.
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.