ArticleTH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis2025
Performance Verification of High Sensitivity Analyzer for TAT, PIC, TM, and t-PAIC.
Article in TH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT), a2-plasmininhibitor-plasmin complex (PIC), thrombomodulin (TM), tissue plasminogen activator-plasminogen activator inhibitor complex (t-PAIC) has been increasingly applied in clinical practice in recent years, especially in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases associated with thrombosis and hemorrhage. However, there is no universally accepted evaluation standard for the performance verification of these four indicators currently. Therefore, we designed experiments to verify the precision, trueness, carryover, linearity, and reference intervals of these four indicators. This study is expected to provide references for subsequent research in terms of data and experimental methods. Methods: According to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines EP15-A2, EP06-A, and C28-A, the precision, trueness, carryover, linearity, and reference intervals were evaluated. Results: The within-laboratory CVs of TAT, PIC, TM, and t-PAIC were 3.67, 6.51, 3.64, and 2.46% on Control L and 4.68, 4.67, 5.08, and 3.87% on Control H. The assigned value of calibrations of TAT, PIC, TM, and t-PAIC were all included in the verification intervals. The biases of the four items of Calibration 1 were -6.67, -0.90, -3.58, and -6.78% and biases on Calibration 2 were -2.70, 1.63, 2.66, and -1.16%, respectively, compared with the assigned value provided by the manufacturer. The carryover rate of each indicator was less than 1%. Within the range that meets clinical use, the best fit curves of the four indicators were linear, and the correlation coefficients of all indicators were greater than 0.99. The reference intervals provided by the manufacturer were appropriate in our laboratory. Conclusion: The performance of HISCL-5000 analyzer for TAT, PIC, TM, and t-PAIC analysis were acceptable and the systems were suitable for clinical analysis.
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.