Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Comparison of Different Immunoassays for CA 19-9

Authors: P, Stern; B, Friedecky; V, Bartos; D, Bezdickova; J, Vavrova; J, Uhrova; L, Rozprimova; +2 Authors

Comparison of Different Immunoassays for CA 19-9

Abstract

We compared six routinely employed immunoassay kits: Architect i2000 and AxSYM, Abbott Laboratories; Elecsys 2010, Roche Diagnostics; ELSA, CIS-BioInternational; Immulite 1, Diagnostic Products Corporation; and IRMA-mat, Byk-Sangtec Diagnostica. Using all analytical systems, we measured identical groups of clinical samples completed with selected control samples. The repeatability of measurements (coefficient of variation) ranged from 2.1% (Elecsys 2010) to 6.7% (ELSA). The parameters of Passing-Bablok regression show significant systematic differences among analytical systems. Data from a Bland-Altman diagram suggest that these differences project onto other, still more significant individual differences among individual samples. Though the cut-off values differ between various systems, no similar clinical efficacy appears to be attained. The behavior of individual systems is quite different for identical control materials and does not necessarily duplicate the calibration for biological samples. The results of determining CA 19-9 cannot be extrapolated from one analytical technique to another, even in cases where the same monoclonal antibody is used. Standardization of CA 19-9 measurement systems is necessary to allow use of the results for the purposes of evidence-based medicine.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Immunoenzyme Techniques, CA-19-9 Antigen, Linear Models, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Reagent Kits, Diagnostic, Sensitivity and Specificity

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    27
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
27
Top 10%
Top 10%
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!