ArticleBMC endocrine disorders2026
Interpreting the drop: concordance and disparity between a new point-of-care assay and laboratory intraoperative parathyroid hormone testing in parathyroid surgery.
Article in BMC endocrine disorders, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the concordance of the NBCL CONNECT Point-of-Care (POC) Intraoperative Parathyroid Hormone (IOPTH) assay with a Central Laboratory standard, with a focus on percentage drops and the usefulness of POC testing in parathyroid surgeries. METHODOLOGY: In this prospective single-centre study (Nov 2023-May 2025), blood samples were drawn from patients undergoing parathyroidectomy for simultaneous analysis on the NBCL CONNECT POC assay and the central laboratory platform. The timing of the blood sample would typically be at induction of anaesthesia, 5 min and 10 min post-excision. Statistical analyses were performed using Python with the SciPy and Matplotlib libraries. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to determine the presence of a systematic difference between the two assays. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to calculate the mean difference and the 95% limits of agreement. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the linear relationship between the two methods.
resultsFifty-seven consecutive patients were identified and included in this study. No significant difference was found at baseline (p = 0.943) or 5 min (p = 0.098). However, a statistically significant difference emerged at 10 min (p = 0.003). Bland-Altman analysis revealed wide limits of agreement at all time points and correlation between the methods was poor at the 10-minute mark (r = 0.11). The mean percentage PTH drop reported by NBCL CONNECT was significantly greater than the laboratory values at both 5 min (58.6% vs. 49.0%, p = 0.001) and 10 min (51.2% vs. 36.2%, p = 0.009).
conclusionThe NBCL CONNECT provides a reliable baseline PTH measurement but consistently reports a larger percentage drop post-excision. Surgeons using this assay must be aware of its specific characteristics and the potential for both false-positive and false-negative results to ensure optimal surgical outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.