ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2026
Evaluation of the interference of 49 commonly used clinical drugs on 60 biochemical tests.
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
Objective: This study aimed to systematically evaluate the interference of 49 commonly used clinical drugs on 60 routine biochemical tests, providing a foundation for clinical laboratories to establish drug-interference alert systems and support more accurate result interpretation. Method: We tested 49 drugs at three concentrations (baseline, therapeutic C1, supra-therapeutic C2) on 60 biochemical assays following CLSI EP07. For each drug-test combination, a single patient serum/plasma pool was split into three aliquots: baseline, C1-spiked, and C2-spiked. All samples were analyzed using a Mindray BS-2800M fully automated biochemical analyzer. Results at C1 and C2 were compared with baseline (zero concentration) to characterize drug-induced interference with each biochemical test. Results: At concentration C1, 23 drugs exhibited no interference across all 60 biochemical tests. Among the 2940 drug-test combinations evaluated, C1 generated 27 cases (0.9%) of strong interference, mainly within liver function assays, and 40 cases (1.4%) of weak interference. The majority (97.7%) exhibited no detectable effect. At concentration C2, a total of 2820 drug-test combinations were included in the analysis. Strong interference was detected in 103 cases (3.7%), primarily affecting liver and lipid profiles, alongside 117 cases (4.1%) of weak interference. Nonetheless, 92.2% of combinations still showed no interference. Conclusion: This study provides a comprehensive profile of drug-induced interference across 60 routinely performed biochemical tests. These findings could support the accurate interpretation and interference identification of laboratory results.
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.