cf量子汗液试验:尚未准备好用于临床

M. Rock, V. Legrys
{"title":"cf量子汗液试验:尚未准备好用于临床","authors":"M. Rock, V. Legrys","doi":"10.29074/ascls.119.002105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The CF Quantum Test (CFQT) showed promise in a previous pilot study, however there was greater imprecision in one patch lot. Following the pilot study, the manufacturer changed their fabricating procedures. Subjects with previously diagnosed CF or subjects who required a sweat test for clinical reasons were invited to undergo the CFQT research test and a conventional sweat test (Macroduct®; collection and chloride analysis via the ChloroChek®; chloridometer). Previously diagnosed CF (n= 41) and CRMS (CFTR-related metabolic syndrome)/CFSPID (cystic fibrosis screen positive inconclusive diagnosis) (n= 3) patients and patients who required a sweat test for clinical indications (n=22) were recruited to have bilateral CFQT along with the Macroduct®; test performed on the same day. Pairs of data from each test were plotted as a correlation graph, bias plot and Bland Altman plot. Coefficient of variation (CV) between extremities and QNS rates for both tests were calculated.\nThe CV between left and right extremities was greater in the CFQT (9.5%) compared to the Macroduct®; (4.8%). The QNS (quantity not sufficient) rates of the two tests were comparable (CFQT: 6.8%; Macroduct®;: 6.0%). There was greater imprecision with the CFQT results. The diagnostic agreement between the two tests was 100% positive percent agreement (95% CI: 90–100%), 100% negative percent agreement (95% CI: 80–100%), 67% intermediate percent agreement (95% CI: 30%–80%), and 92% overall percent agreement (95% CI: 80–100%). This follow-up study demonstrated that the CFQT is not analytically nor diagnostically reliable. (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01345617)","PeriodicalId":263458,"journal":{"name":"American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE CF QUANTUM SWEAT TEST: NOT READY FOR CLINICAL USE\",\"authors\":\"M. Rock, V. Legrys\",\"doi\":\"10.29074/ascls.119.002105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The CF Quantum Test (CFQT) showed promise in a previous pilot study, however there was greater imprecision in one patch lot. Following the pilot study, the manufacturer changed their fabricating procedures. Subjects with previously diagnosed CF or subjects who required a sweat test for clinical reasons were invited to undergo the CFQT research test and a conventional sweat test (Macroduct®; collection and chloride analysis via the ChloroChek®; chloridometer). Previously diagnosed CF (n= 41) and CRMS (CFTR-related metabolic syndrome)/CFSPID (cystic fibrosis screen positive inconclusive diagnosis) (n= 3) patients and patients who required a sweat test for clinical indications (n=22) were recruited to have bilateral CFQT along with the Macroduct®; test performed on the same day. Pairs of data from each test were plotted as a correlation graph, bias plot and Bland Altman plot. Coefficient of variation (CV) between extremities and QNS rates for both tests were calculated.\\nThe CV between left and right extremities was greater in the CFQT (9.5%) compared to the Macroduct®; (4.8%). The QNS (quantity not sufficient) rates of the two tests were comparable (CFQT: 6.8%; Macroduct®;: 6.0%). There was greater imprecision with the CFQT results. The diagnostic agreement between the two tests was 100% positive percent agreement (95% CI: 90–100%), 100% negative percent agreement (95% CI: 80–100%), 67% intermediate percent agreement (95% CI: 30%–80%), and 92% overall percent agreement (95% CI: 80–100%). This follow-up study demonstrated that the CFQT is not analytically nor diagnostically reliable. (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01345617)\",\"PeriodicalId\":263458,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29074/ascls.119.002105\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29074/ascls.119.002105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

CF量子测试(CFQT)在之前的试点研究中显示出希望,但在一个补丁批次中存在更大的不准确性。在初步研究之后,制造商改变了他们的制造程序。既往诊断为CF的受试者或因临床原因需要进行汗液试验的受试者被邀请进行CFQT研究试验和常规汗液试验(Macroduct®;通过ChloroChek®收集和氯分析;chloridometer)。招募先前诊断为CF (n= 41)和CRMS (cftr相关代谢综合征)/CFSPID(囊性纤维化筛查阳性不确定诊断)(n= 3)患者和临床适应症需要汗液试验的患者(n=22)进行双侧CFQT和Macroduct®;同一天进行的测试。每个检验的成对数据绘制成相关图、偏倚图和Bland Altman图。计算两个试验的四肢变异系数(CV)和QNS率。与Macroduct®相比,CFQT组左右肢体间的CV(9.5%)更大;(4.8%)。两种检测的QNS(数量不充分)率具有可比性(CFQT: 6.8%;Macroduct®;:6.0%)。CFQT结果有较大的不精确性。两种检测的诊断一致性为100%阳性一致性(95% CI: 90-100%)、100%阴性一致性(95% CI: 80-100%)、67%中间一致性(95% CI: 30%-80%)和92%总体一致性(95% CI: 80-100%)。这项随访研究表明,CFQT在分析和诊断上都不可靠。(Clinicaltrials.gov识别码NCT01345617)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
THE CF QUANTUM SWEAT TEST: NOT READY FOR CLINICAL USE
The CF Quantum Test (CFQT) showed promise in a previous pilot study, however there was greater imprecision in one patch lot. Following the pilot study, the manufacturer changed their fabricating procedures. Subjects with previously diagnosed CF or subjects who required a sweat test for clinical reasons were invited to undergo the CFQT research test and a conventional sweat test (Macroduct®; collection and chloride analysis via the ChloroChek®; chloridometer). Previously diagnosed CF (n= 41) and CRMS (CFTR-related metabolic syndrome)/CFSPID (cystic fibrosis screen positive inconclusive diagnosis) (n= 3) patients and patients who required a sweat test for clinical indications (n=22) were recruited to have bilateral CFQT along with the Macroduct®; test performed on the same day. Pairs of data from each test were plotted as a correlation graph, bias plot and Bland Altman plot. Coefficient of variation (CV) between extremities and QNS rates for both tests were calculated. The CV between left and right extremities was greater in the CFQT (9.5%) compared to the Macroduct®; (4.8%). The QNS (quantity not sufficient) rates of the two tests were comparable (CFQT: 6.8%; Macroduct®;: 6.0%). There was greater imprecision with the CFQT results. The diagnostic agreement between the two tests was 100% positive percent agreement (95% CI: 90–100%), 100% negative percent agreement (95% CI: 80–100%), 67% intermediate percent agreement (95% CI: 30%–80%), and 92% overall percent agreement (95% CI: 80–100%). This follow-up study demonstrated that the CFQT is not analytically nor diagnostically reliable. (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01345617)
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Influences of Patient Characteristics on the Predictive Value of Molecular Biomarkers of Colon Cancer in Tubular Adenomas Molecular Action of ADAMTS-13 and Transfusion Therapies of Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura Presence of Group B Streptococcus in Raw and Dehydrated Placentas Leveraging Creativity to Teach Science: Incorporating Sketchnotes in Medical Laboratory Science Curriculum Demonstration of the Nanopore MinION DNA Sequencer
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1