ArticlePloS one2025
Stability, accuracy, and clinical performance of enzymatic total CO₂ measurement: Evaluation of the Snibe and Roche assays.
Article in PloS one, 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
objectivesTo evaluate the stability, accuracy, and clinical performance of the Snibe CO₂ assay compared with the Roche CO₂ reagent and to investigate factors affecting total CO₂ measurements in different clinical conditions.
methodsTotal CO₂ was measured in patient samples using enzymatic assays. Stability was assessed over time, and CO₂ loss was examined in different blood collection tubes. Method comparison was conducted between the Snibe and the Roche CO₂ assays in various diseases.
resultsThe Snibe CO₂ assay showed excellent linearity (r = 0.9997) and maintained stability for 42 days without recalibration, with control material deviations within ±5% of the target. CO₂ loss was observed in uncapped non-anticoagulant tubes (24.0% decline over 48 hours), but was less in EP tubes (9.4% decline). Significant differences of median CO₂ measurements were observed in only the renal group (Snibe: 13.35 mmol/L, Roche: 12.80 mmol/L) and the cardiovascular disease group (Snibe: 25.90 mmol/L, Roche: 26.40 mmol/L) versus the healthy group (Snibe: 22.70 mmol/L, Roche: 22.90 mmol/L) for both the Snibe and Roche assays.
conclusionsThe Snibe CO₂ assay demonstrated superior stability and comparable accuracy compared with the Roche reagent. Preanalytical CO₂ loss remains a critical issue, emphasizing the need for standardized sample handling. Given the correlation between total CO₂ and bicarbonate levels, accurate measurement is critical for diagnosing metabolic disorders. Laboratories should establish protocols to minimize errors and ensure reliable acid-base assessment in clinical practice.
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.