ArticleScientific reports2025
Large-scale comparison of two immunoassays for adrenocorticotropic hormone in human plasma.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validated LC-MS/MS Methods for Quantification of AC02 and Porcine ACTHPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics and Immunogenicity of AC02, a Novel Synthetic Derivate Peptide of Human Adrenocorticotropic Hormone for Infantile Spasms.Pharmaceutics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate measurement of plasma adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) is critical in the diagnosis and management of conditions that affect pituitary or adrenal gland function. Herein, we assessed the agreement and the extent of discordance between immunoassays from Roche and Siemens in two large collections of specimens. In a collection of 602 de-identified specimens (n = 561 from patients and n = 41 from healthy volunteers), the ACTH results were highly correlated with a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.87. For all specimen comparisons, 56 (9.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.2%-11.9%) had a discordance with > 50% difference in the ACTH levels (including 2 healthy donors). In Bland-Altman analysis, 37 (6.1%; 95%CI, 4.5%-8.4%) specimens fell outside the limits of agreement (lower limit: -82% in difference, and upper limit: 75%), the majority of which (33 [89.2%]) had higher ACTH results (including 2 healthy donors) using the Siemens assay than the Roche assay (p < 0.05). Similar results were observed in another collection of 100 de-identified patient specimens. HAMA/heterophile absorption experiments did not explain these phenomena. These observations demonstrate that a substantial fraction of patient specimens had significant differences in the ACTH results using the Roche and Siemens assays (p < 0.001), primarily due to higher levels from the Siemens assay. Therefore, abnormally high levels of ACTH should be interpreted with caution, particularly when the Siemens assay is used.
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.