ArticleAnnals of medicine2026
Comparative analysis of three different serum-free light chain assays in the diagnosis of multiple myeloma.
Article in Annals of medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe lack of analysis methods and standardization are the core problems of serum free light chain (sFLC) detection in Multiple myeloma (MM). This study validated a new KHB sFLC assay through comparative analysis with conventional assays. MATERIALS AND
methodsSerum samples from 97 hospitalized MM patients were continuously collected. KHB, Freelite and N Latex assays were used to detect sFLC. The Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablok regressions were used for methodological comparison and bias evaluation. Spearman's test and Cohen's kappa coefficients were used to evaluate the correlation and clinical concordance.
resultsThe sFLC results for KHB, Freelite, and N Latex showed a significant correlation. Passing-Bablok regression analysis revealed strong concordance between the KHB and N Latex for κFLC, and between KHB and Freelite assays for λFLC and FLC-ratio (κ/λ). When using N Latex and Freelite assays for sFLC determination, selecting iFLC/niFLC ≥ 20 or iFLC/niFLC ≥ 100 could lead to different clinical treatment decisions for approximately 9%∼12% of patients. When using KHB and Freelite assays for sFLC determination, selecting iFLC/niFLC ≥ 20 or iFLC/niFLC ≥ 100 could lead to different clinical treatment decisions for approximately 5%∼7% of patients.
conclusionKHB, as a sFLC detection method based on polyclonal antibodies and immunoturbidimetric principles, has a good correlation between its detection results and freelite and N Latex. The absolute difference in sFLC results among the three assays increased with increasing sFLC concentration, and selecting the same cutoff value for iFLC/niFLC may lead to inconsistent clinical treatment decisions in some patients.
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.