ArticleBiosensors2025
Performance of Colorimetric Lateral Flow Immunoassays for Renal Function Evaluation with Human Serum Cystatin C.
Article in Biosensors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and Analytical Validation of a Smartphone-Based Quantitative Lateral Flow Immunoassay for Serum Cystatin-C.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with heart failure and neurological disorders. Therefore, point-of-care (POC) detection of CKD is essential, allowing disease monitoring from home and alleviating healthcare professionals' workload. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) facilitate POC testing for a renal function biomarker, serum Cystatin C (CysC). LF devices were fabricated and optimised by varying the diluted sample volume, the nitrocellulose (NC) membrane, bed volume, AuNPs' OD value and volume, and assay formats of partial or full LF systems. Notably, 310 samples were analysed to satisfy the minimum sample size for statistical calculations. This allowed for a comparison between the LFIAs' results and the general Roche standard assay results from the Southern Health and Social Care Trust. Bland-Altman plots indicated the LFIAs measured 0.51 mg/L lower than the Roche assays. With the 95% confidence interval, the Roche method might be 0.24 mg/L below the LFIAs' results or 1.27 mg/L above the LFIAs' results. In summary, the developed non-fluorescent LFIAs could detect clinical CysC values in agreement with Roche assays. Even though the developed LFIA had an increased bias in low CysC concentration (below 2 mg/L) detection, the developed LFIA can still alert patients at the early stages of renal function impairment.
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.