Biochemia Medica最新文献

A predatory journal could be provisionally defined as one masquerading as a genuine academic publication but offer little, if any, rigorous peer review. Predatory journals or publishers place a focus on maximising financial profit, as opposed to regulated dissemination of scientific advancements. As a result, authors can often get their work published in such journals with little scrutiny on quality. Although generally warned against and discouraged, universally practiced sanctions against researchers' submission to and publication in predatory journals are not common. Predatory publishing thus remains prevalent, particularly in places where academic success is measured by the quantity rather than quality of publication output, which feeds the journal's business model that thrives upon significant market demand. However, such an undesirable enterprise has the potential to flood the scientific literature with unsound research that could be misleadingly perceived as authoritative. This may result in or add to the confusion of policy makers and the layperson, consequentially bringing disrepute to science and all parties involved. Here, we argue that wilfully submitting one's manuscript to a predatory journal may constitute an active act of avoidance of rigorous peer review of one's work. If such is the intention, it would be a questionable research practice and could be considered an, albeit covert, form of scientific misconduct. If labelled as such, and with institutional and funding rules erected to discourage the practice, predatory publishing could be effectively put out of business through diminishing the consumer demand.

Introduction: The current study aimed to assess the interference of in vitro haemolysis on complete blood count (CBC) using Abbott Alinity hq system, and to determine which haemolysis levels affect the reliability of sample results.

Materials and methods: Blood samples obtained from 25 volunteers in K3-EDTA tubes were divided into four aliquots. The first aliquot was not subjected to any intervention. The second, third and fourth aliquots were passed through a fine needle 2, 4 and 6 times, respectively. Complete blood count was performed by multi-angle polarized scatter separation technology and haemolysis index (HI) was assessed from the plasma samples separated by centrifugation. Five groups were formed according to the HI values. The percentage biases between the results of non-haemolysed and haemolysed groups were compared with the desirable bias limits from The European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine database and reference change values (RCVs).

Results: In groups 1 to 4, the effects of haemolysis on CBC parameters were acceptable comparing to the analytical bias except for lymphocytes (7.26%-7.42%), MCH (2.59%), and MCHC (0.47%-2.81%). Results of group 5 (gross haemolysis) showed decreases in HCT(- 4.56%), RBC (- 4.07%) count and increase in lymphocyte (11.60%) count higher than the analytical performance specifications. Moreover, variations in MCH (4.65%) and MCHC (5.24%) were exceeding the RCVs.

Conclusions: Gross haemolysis (haemoglobin concentration > 10 g/L) is likely to produce unreliable CBC results on non-pathological samples. Further studies including pathological specimens are needed.

We reported macrolipasemia in a colon cancer patient during the chemotherapy period without any evidence of pancreatitis. A 52-year-old man formerly treated for papillary thyroid carcinoma had elevated a carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) concentration in the latest control and was diagnosed with colon cancer. Xelox chemotherapy (oxaliplatin and capecitabine) protocol was planned for six months. Interestingly, the lipase activities gradually increased from 30 U/L to 434 U/L, and exceeded three times the upper limit of the reference range (13-60 U/L). There were no symptoms of pancreatitis, and the abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan was also normal. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) recovery % values of serum samples gradually decreased and were 27% in the recent sample before the end of chemotherapy. Interestingly, the serum lipase activity fell a month after chemotherapy, and PEG recovery % increased (39%). We considered the following possibilities: (1) macrolipasemia due to chemotherapy drugs, (2) macrolipasemia due to antibodies against chemotherapy drugs.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic represents a scientific and social crisis. One of the main unmet needs for coronavirus disease 2019 is its unpredictable clinical course, which can rapidly change in an irreversible outcome. COVID-19 patients can be classified into mild, moderate, and severe. Several haematological parameters, such as platelets, white blood cell total count, lymphocytes, neutrophils, (together with neutrophil-lymphocyte and platelet-lymphocyte ratio), and haemoglobin were described to be associated with COVID-19 infection and severity. The purpose of these review is to describe the current state of the art about complete blood count alterations during COVID-19 infection, and to summarize the crucial role of some haematological parameters during the course of the disease. Decreased platelet, lymphocyte, haemoglobin, eosinophil, and basophil count, increased neutrophil count and neutrophil-lymphocyte and platelet-lymphocyte ratio have been associated with COVID-19 infection and a worse clinical outcome. Our study adds some novelty about the identification of effective biomarkers of progressive disease, and might be helpful for diagnosis, prevention of complications, and effective therapy.

Introduction: The measurement of serum free light chain (FLC) represents a fundamental aspect on the assessment of patients with monoclonal gammopathies (MG). Different analytical methods for FLC have become available with the possibility to obtain different value with a substantial impact on the assessment of patients with MG. This study aimed to evaluate FLC results obtained with two different assays and how the difference value obtained can impact in the patient's assessment.

Materials and methods: Ninety-three patient serum samples that underwent analysis for FLC with two different methods, Serum Freelite (The Binding Site, Birmingham, UK) and N-Latex FLC (Siemens, Marburg, Germany), were included in this retrospective study. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate correlation, difference, and the grade of concordance between the results obtained with the two methods.

Results: Significant statistical differences between the results obtained from the two methods were found (P < 0.05). A good correlation was found (0.99 for κ FLC, 0.95 for λ FLC, and 0.94 for the κ/λ ratio, respectively). We found a weighted kappa value of 0.65 for κ/λ ratio, 0.65 for λ FLC and 0.90 for κ FLC. A positive bias found with the Bland-Altman plot mirrors overestimation of κ FLC and κ/λ ratio with Freelite compared to N-Latex, whilst a negative bias underscores underestimation of λ FLC by Freelite compared to N-Latex.

Conclusion: Although in general the concordance between Freelite and N-Latex appears satisfactory, several discrepancies could be evidenced and consequently the two assays are not interchangeable.

Women's metabolism during pregnancy undergoes numerous changes that can lead to gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The cause and pathogenesis of GDM, a heterogeneous disease, are not completely clear, but GDM is increasing in prevalence and is associated with the modern lifestyle. Most diagnoses of GDM are made via the guidelines from the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADSPG), which involve an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy. Diagnosis in this stage of pregnancy can lead to short- and long-term implications for the mother and child. Therefore, there is an urgent need for earlier GDM markers in order to enable prevention and earlier treatment. Routine GDM biomarkers (plasma glucose, insulin, C-peptide, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance, and sex hormone-binding globulin) can differentiate between healthy pregnant women and those with GDM but are not suitable for early GDM diagnosis. In this article, we present an overview of the potential early biomarkers for GDM that have been investigated recently. We also present our view of future developments in the laboratory diagnosis of GDM.

Introduction: MicroRNAs are small, non-coding RNA molecules that are becoming popular biomarkers in several diseases. However, their low abundance in serum/plasma poses a challenge in exploiting their potential in clinics. Several commercial kits are available for rapid isolation of microRNA from plasma. However, reports guiding the selection of appropriate kits to study downstream assays are scarce. Hence, we compared four commercial kits to evaluate microRNA-extraction from plasma and provided a modified protocol that further improved the superior kit's performance.

Materials and methods: We compared four kits (miRNeasy Serum/Plasma, miRNeasy Mini Kit from Qiagen; RNA-isolation, and Absolutely-RNA MicroRNA Kit from Agilent technologies) for quality and quantity of microRNA isolated, extraction efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. Bioanalyzer-based Agilent Small RNA kit was used to evaluate quality and quantity of microRNA. Extraction efficiency was evaluated by detection of four endogenous control microRNA using real-time-PCR. Further, we modified the manufacturer's protocol for miRNeasy Serum/Plasma kit to improve yield.

Results: miRNeasy Serum/Plasma kit outperformed the other three kits in microRNA-quality (P < 0.005) and yielded maximum microRNA-quantity. Recovery of endogenous control microRNA i.e. hsa-miR-24-3p, hsa-miR-191-5p, hsa-miR-423-5p and hsa-miR-484 was higher as well. Modification with the inclusion of a double elution step enhanced yield of microRNA extracted with miRNeasy Serum/Plasma kit significantly (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: We demonstrated that miRNeasy Serum/Plasma kit outperforms other kits and can be reliably used with a limited plasma quantity. We have provided a modified microRNA-extraction protocol with improved microRNA output for downstream analyses.

Introduction: It is common for patients to switch between several healthcare providers. In this context, the long-term follow-up of medical conditions based on laboratory test results obtained from different laboratories is a challenge. The measurement uncertainty in an inter-laboratory context should also be considered in data mining research based on routine results from randomly selected laboratories. As a proof-of-concept study, we aimed at estimating the inter-laboratory reference change value (IL-RCV) for exemplary analytes from publicly available data on external quality assessment (EQA) and biological variation.

Materials and methods: External quality assessment data of the Reference Institute for Bioanalytics (RfB, Bonn, Germany) for serum creatinine, calcium, aldosterone, PSA, and of whole blood HbA1c from campaigns sent out in 2019 were analysed. The median CVs of all EQA participants were calculated based on 8 samples from 4 EQA campaigns per analyte. Using intra-individual biological variation data from the EFLM database, positive and negative IL-RCV were estimated with a formula based on log transformation under the assumption that the analytes under examination have a skewed distribution.

Results: We estimated IL-RCVs for all exemplary analytes, ranging from 13.3% to 203% for the positive IL-RCV and - 11.8% to - 67.0% for the negative IL-RCV (serum calcium - serum aldosterone), respectively.

Conclusion: External quality assessment data together with data on the biological variation - both freely available - allow the estimation of inter-laboratory RCVs. These differ substantially between different analytes and can help to assess the boundaries of interoperability in laboratory medicine.

Introduction: General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) focuses on important elements of data ethics, including protecting people's privacy, accountability and transparency. According to the GDPR, certain public institutions are obliged to appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO). However, there is little publicly available data from national EU surveys on DPOs. This study aimed to examine the scope of work, type of work, and education of DPOs in institutions in Croatia.

Materials and methods: During 2020-2021, this cross-sectional study surveyed DPOs appointed in Croatia. The survey had 35 items. The questions referred to their appointment, work methods, number and type of cases handled by DPOs, the sources of information they use, their experience and education, level of work independence, contacts with ethics committees, problems experienced, knowledge, suggestions for improvement of their work, changes caused by the GDPR, and sociodemographic information.

Results: Out of 5671 invited DPOs, 732 (13%) participated in the study. The majority (91%) indicated that they could perform their job independently; they did not have prior experience in data protection before being appointed as DPOs (54%) and that they need additional education in data protection (82%).

Conclusions: Most DPOs indicated that they had none or minimal prior experience in data protection when they were appointed as DPO, that they would benefit from further education on data protection, and exhibited insufficient knowledge on basic concepts of personal data protection. Requirements for DPO appointments should be clarified; mandatory education and certification of DPOs could be introduced and DPOs encouraged to engage in continuous education.