{"title":"Appropriate Method of TIBC Estimation in Reference to Serum Transferrin Levels.","authors":"Hardik Mahant, Shilpa Jain, Arpita Patel, Bhumi Lapani","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1750065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b> The currently available various methods of estimation of total iron binding capacity (TIBC) show marked variation in reference range. Although serum transferrin (TF) level is a sensitive indicator of iron status, its measurement requires immunoassay equipment which may not be available in many routine biochemistry laboratories. So, this study was planned to find the most appropriate method to estimate TIBC. <b>Objectives</b> This study aimed to compare different methods of TIBC estimation and to corelate the TIBC values obtained by different methods with serum TF concentration. <b>Material and Methods</b> This analytical cross-sectional study was performed in the clinical chemistry laboratory of the Biochemistry Department of Medical College Baroda & SSG Hospital, Vadodara, Gujarat, on 250 leftover serum samples destined to be discarded. In all these samples, serum TIBC was estimated by direct method, indirect method, as well as calculated method (iron + unsaturated iron binding capacity [UIBC]) along with the measurement of serum TF level. <b>Statistical Analysis</b> Among the different methods, repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis and Bland-Altman plot were used to find out significance of difference. Correlation coefficients were found between different methods of TIBC estimation and serum TF levels. <b>Results</b> The means of TIBC by calculated, indirect, and direct methods were 344.51, 342.23, and 378.24 µg/dL, respectively. The mean of serum TF was 295.3 mg/dL. There was statistically significant difference between TIBC by direct and indirect methods and between direct and calculated methods. There was a strong positive correlation between TIBC by direct method and serum TF ( <i>r</i> = 0.888, <i>p</i> < 0.0001), but there was moderate correlation between TIBC by indirect method and serum TF ( <i>r</i> = 0.748, <i>p</i> < 0.04), and between TIBC by calculated method and serum TF ( <i>r</i> = 0.725, <i>p</i> < 0.05). <b>Conclusion</b> Among different methods of estimation of TIBC, direct method is more reliable in reference to serum TF levels.</p>","PeriodicalId":16149,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Laboratory Physicians","volume":"15 1","pages":"25-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/93/fa/10-1055-s-0042-1750065.PMC10104694.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Laboratory Physicians","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1750065","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background The currently available various methods of estimation of total iron binding capacity (TIBC) show marked variation in reference range. Although serum transferrin (TF) level is a sensitive indicator of iron status, its measurement requires immunoassay equipment which may not be available in many routine biochemistry laboratories. So, this study was planned to find the most appropriate method to estimate TIBC. Objectives This study aimed to compare different methods of TIBC estimation and to corelate the TIBC values obtained by different methods with serum TF concentration. Material and Methods This analytical cross-sectional study was performed in the clinical chemistry laboratory of the Biochemistry Department of Medical College Baroda & SSG Hospital, Vadodara, Gujarat, on 250 leftover serum samples destined to be discarded. In all these samples, serum TIBC was estimated by direct method, indirect method, as well as calculated method (iron + unsaturated iron binding capacity [UIBC]) along with the measurement of serum TF level. Statistical Analysis Among the different methods, repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis and Bland-Altman plot were used to find out significance of difference. Correlation coefficients were found between different methods of TIBC estimation and serum TF levels. Results The means of TIBC by calculated, indirect, and direct methods were 344.51, 342.23, and 378.24 µg/dL, respectively. The mean of serum TF was 295.3 mg/dL. There was statistically significant difference between TIBC by direct and indirect methods and between direct and calculated methods. There was a strong positive correlation between TIBC by direct method and serum TF ( r = 0.888, p < 0.0001), but there was moderate correlation between TIBC by indirect method and serum TF ( r = 0.748, p < 0.04), and between TIBC by calculated method and serum TF ( r = 0.725, p < 0.05). Conclusion Among different methods of estimation of TIBC, direct method is more reliable in reference to serum TF levels.
背景目前已有的各种估算总铁结合力(TIBC)的方法在参考范围上存在明显差异。虽然血清转铁蛋白(TF)水平是铁状态的敏感指标,但其测量需要免疫测定设备,而许多常规生物化学实验室可能无法获得。因此,本研究计划寻找最合适的方法来估计TIBC。目的比较不同的TIBC估计方法,并探讨不同方法获得的TIBC值与血清TF浓度的相关性。材料和方法本分析性横断面研究在古吉拉特邦瓦多达拉巴罗达医学院和SSG医院生物化学系临床化学实验室对250份拟丢弃的剩余血清样本进行。在测定血清TF水平的同时,采用直接法、间接法和计算法(铁+不饱和铁结合力[UIBC])估算血清TIBC。不同的方法中,采用重复方差分析(ANOVA)分析和Bland-Altman图来寻找差异的显著性。不同的TIBC估计方法与血清TF水平存在相关系数。结果计算法、间接法和直接法的TIBC平均值分别为344.51、342.23和378.24µg/dL。血清TF平均值为295.3 mg/dL。直接法与间接法、直接法与计算法的TIBC差异有统计学意义。直接法TIBC与血清TF呈极显著正相关(r = 0.888, p r = 0.748, p r = 0.725, p)结论在不同TIBC估计方法中,直接法参考血清TF水平更为可靠。