雅培 D-二聚体测定:静脉血栓栓塞症治疗中的分析性能和诊断准确性。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-16 DOI:10.1080/00365513.2024.2318616
Ivana Lapić, Anamarija Bogić, Ivana Stojan, Dunja Rogić
{"title":"雅培 D-二聚体测定:静脉血栓栓塞症治疗中的分析性能和诊断准确性。","authors":"Ivana Lapić, Anamarija Bogić, Ivana Stojan, Dunja Rogić","doi":"10.1080/00365513.2024.2318616","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to assess analytical characteristics and diagnostic accuracy in management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the Emergency Department (ED) of the Abbott D-dimer assay applied on the Alinity c clinical chemistry analyzer (Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL) compared to the INNOVANCE D-dimer assay (Siemens Healthineers, Marburg, Germany). Precision was determined at three concentration levels following the CLSI EP15-A3 protocol. Method comparison and diagnostic accuracy were assessed using samples obtained from 85 patients who were referred for diagnostic imaging and D-dimer testing due to clinically suspected VTE. Within-run coefficients of variation (CVs) were 3.0%, 0.5% and 0.5% at D-dimer concentrations of 0.54, 1.42 and 2.68 mg/L FEU, while respective between-run CVs were 2.0%, 3.4% and 2.7%, hence fulfilling the desirable biological variation criteria for imprecision (<12.6%). Passing-Bablok regression analysis yielded a small proportional difference between the two compared assays (<i>y</i> = 1.09 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.18) <i>x</i> + 0.09 (95%CI: -0.09 to 0.16)), while Bland-Altman analysis showed significant negative absolute (-0.6 mg/L FEU, 95%CI: -0.9 to -0.3) and relative mean bias (-14.1%, 95%CI: -20.3 to -7.9). Spearman's <i>ρ</i> was 0.979 (95%CI: 0.967-0.986). Inter-assay agreement relative to the cut-off was 92% (kappa coefficient = 0.547 (95%CI: 0.255-0.839)). Diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the Abbott assay were 100%, 9.2%, 25.3% and 100%, respectively, compared to the following data for the INNOVANCE assay: 95.0%, 15.4%, 25.7% and 90.9%. Abbott D-dimer assay has shown excellent analytical precision, high comparability with the INNOVANCE D-dimer and high NPV at manufacturer's cut-off.</p>","PeriodicalId":21474,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation","volume":" ","pages":"53-61"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Abbott D-dimer assay: analytical performance and diagnostic accuracy in management of venous thromboembolism.\",\"authors\":\"Ivana Lapić, Anamarija Bogić, Ivana Stojan, Dunja Rogić\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00365513.2024.2318616\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aimed to assess analytical characteristics and diagnostic accuracy in management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the Emergency Department (ED) of the Abbott D-dimer assay applied on the Alinity c clinical chemistry analyzer (Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL) compared to the INNOVANCE D-dimer assay (Siemens Healthineers, Marburg, Germany). Precision was determined at three concentration levels following the CLSI EP15-A3 protocol. Method comparison and diagnostic accuracy were assessed using samples obtained from 85 patients who were referred for diagnostic imaging and D-dimer testing due to clinically suspected VTE. Within-run coefficients of variation (CVs) were 3.0%, 0.5% and 0.5% at D-dimer concentrations of 0.54, 1.42 and 2.68 mg/L FEU, while respective between-run CVs were 2.0%, 3.4% and 2.7%, hence fulfilling the desirable biological variation criteria for imprecision (<12.6%). Passing-Bablok regression analysis yielded a small proportional difference between the two compared assays (<i>y</i> = 1.09 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.18) <i>x</i> + 0.09 (95%CI: -0.09 to 0.16)), while Bland-Altman analysis showed significant negative absolute (-0.6 mg/L FEU, 95%CI: -0.9 to -0.3) and relative mean bias (-14.1%, 95%CI: -20.3 to -7.9). Spearman's <i>ρ</i> was 0.979 (95%CI: 0.967-0.986). Inter-assay agreement relative to the cut-off was 92% (kappa coefficient = 0.547 (95%CI: 0.255-0.839)). Diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the Abbott assay were 100%, 9.2%, 25.3% and 100%, respectively, compared to the following data for the INNOVANCE assay: 95.0%, 15.4%, 25.7% and 90.9%. Abbott D-dimer assay has shown excellent analytical precision, high comparability with the INNOVANCE D-dimer and high NPV at manufacturer's cut-off.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"53-61\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2024.2318616\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2024.2318616","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在评估在Alinity c临床化学分析仪(雅培实验室,伊利诺伊州芝加哥市)上应用的雅培D-二聚体测定法与INNOVANCE D-二聚体测定法(西门子医疗集团,德国马尔堡市)在急诊科静脉血栓栓塞症(VTE)管理中的分析特性和诊断准确性。精确度按照 CLSI EP15-A3 协议在三个浓度水平上进行测定。方法比较和诊断准确性的评估使用了从 85 位因临床疑似 VTE 而转诊进行影像诊断和 D-二聚体检测的患者身上获得的样本。在 D-二聚体浓度为 0.54、1.42 和 2.68 毫克/升 FEU 时,运行内变异系数(CV)分别为 3.0%、0.5% 和 0.5%,而运行间变异系数分别为 2.0%、3.4% 和 2.7%,因此符合不精确性的理想生物变异标准(y = 1.0%)。布兰-阿尔特曼分析表明,绝对偏差(-0.6 毫克/升 FEU,95%CI:-0.9 至-0.3)和相对平均偏差(-14.1%,95%CI:-20.3 至-7.9)均呈显著负值。斯皮尔曼指数为 0.979(95%CI:0.967-0.986)。相对于临界值,测定间的一致性为 92%(卡帕系数 = 0.547 (95%CI: 0.255-0.839))。雅培检测法的诊断灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为 100%、9.2%、25.3% 和 100%,而 INNOVANCE 检测法的数据如下:95.0%、15.4%、25.7% 和 90.9%。雅培 D-二聚体检测法显示出卓越的分析精确度,与 INNOVANCE D-二聚体检测法具有很高的可比性,并且在制造商设定的临界值下具有很高的 NPV。
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
Abbott D-dimer assay: analytical performance and diagnostic accuracy in management of venous thromboembolism.

This study aimed to assess analytical characteristics and diagnostic accuracy in management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the Emergency Department (ED) of the Abbott D-dimer assay applied on the Alinity c clinical chemistry analyzer (Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL) compared to the INNOVANCE D-dimer assay (Siemens Healthineers, Marburg, Germany). Precision was determined at three concentration levels following the CLSI EP15-A3 protocol. Method comparison and diagnostic accuracy were assessed using samples obtained from 85 patients who were referred for diagnostic imaging and D-dimer testing due to clinically suspected VTE. Within-run coefficients of variation (CVs) were 3.0%, 0.5% and 0.5% at D-dimer concentrations of 0.54, 1.42 and 2.68 mg/L FEU, while respective between-run CVs were 2.0%, 3.4% and 2.7%, hence fulfilling the desirable biological variation criteria for imprecision (<12.6%). Passing-Bablok regression analysis yielded a small proportional difference between the two compared assays (y = 1.09 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.18) x + 0.09 (95%CI: -0.09 to 0.16)), while Bland-Altman analysis showed significant negative absolute (-0.6 mg/L FEU, 95%CI: -0.9 to -0.3) and relative mean bias (-14.1%, 95%CI: -20.3 to -7.9). Spearman's ρ was 0.979 (95%CI: 0.967-0.986). Inter-assay agreement relative to the cut-off was 92% (kappa coefficient = 0.547 (95%CI: 0.255-0.839)). Diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the Abbott assay were 100%, 9.2%, 25.3% and 100%, respectively, compared to the following data for the INNOVANCE assay: 95.0%, 15.4%, 25.7% and 90.9%. Abbott D-dimer assay has shown excellent analytical precision, high comparability with the INNOVANCE D-dimer and high NPV at manufacturer's cut-off.

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
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
85
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation is an international scientific journal covering clinically oriented biochemical and physiological research. Since the launch of the journal in 1949, it has been a forum for international laboratory medicine, closely related to, and edited by, The Scandinavian Society for Clinical Chemistry. The journal contains peer-reviewed articles, editorials, invited reviews, and short technical notes, as well as several supplements each year. Supplements consist of monographs, and symposium and congress reports covering subjects within clinical chemistry and clinical physiology.
期刊最新文献
Analytical interference on measurement of immunoglobulins in monoclonal gammopathy. FlowDiff: a simple, flow cytometry-based approach for performing a leukocyte differential count. Reference intervals for 23 common biochemical parameters during pregnancy and the first six postpartum months. Prevalence of monoclonal proteins in patients with isolated hypogammaglobulinemia on serum protein electrophoresis. Challenges of preanalytical variables in erythrocyte sedimentation rate: a CUBE 30 touch evaluation.
×
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