ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2026
Preliminary comparative evaluation of an immunofluorescence point-of-care system and central laboratory platforms for measuring cardiac biomarkers.
Article in Practical laboratory 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Point-of-care testing (POCT) can accelerate clinical decision-making, but its analytical performance must be verified against central laboratory platforms before implementation. This study compared an immunofluorescence-based POCT system (STANDARD™ F Analyzer, SD Biosensor) with central laboratory analyzers used in the Clinical Laboratory of IRCCS MultiMedica (Siemens Atellica IM and CS-5100) for cardiac Troponin I (cTnI), creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), D-dimer and high-sensitivity C-Reactive Protein (hs-CRP). Methods: Serum and citrate samples were tested in parallel on both systems. Analytical precision was assessed using a CLSI EP15-A3 5 × 3 design. Method comparison included Passing-Bablok regression, Bland-Altman analysis and categorical agreement assessed by Cohen's κ at clinically relevant decision thresholds. Results: A total of 217 samples were analyzed. The POCT system met predefined precision acceptance criteria for most biomarkers. Significant inter-method differences were particularly evident for CK-MB and D-dimer, whereas NT-proBNP showed smaller analytical discrepancies. hs-CRP showed acceptable categorical agreement despite limited precision performance at one control level. For cTnI, quantitative comparison at very low concentrations was limited by the higher limit of quantification of the POCT assay. Overall, categorical agreement at clinical decision thresholds ranged from moderate to high across biomarkers. Conclusion: The STANDARD™ F Analyzer showed variable analytical performance, with limited analytical comparability to reference methods, particularly for hs-CRP and at low cTnI concentrations. Categorical agreement was moderate overall, but clinically relevant misclassifications were observed. Therefore, the POCT platform may serve as a complementary tool in settings without immediate access to a core laboratory, provided that its analytical limitations are recognized and results are interpreted using assay-specific thresholds.
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.