Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10553/45325
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBargnoux, Anne Sophieen_US
dc.contributor.authorPiéroni, Laurenceen_US
dc.contributor.authorCristol, Jean Paulen_US
dc.contributor.authorKuster, Nilsen_US
dc.contributor.authorDelanaye, Pierreen_US
dc.contributor.authorCarlier, Marie Christineen_US
dc.contributor.authorFellahi, Sorayaen_US
dc.contributor.authorBoutten, Anneen_US
dc.contributor.authorLombard, Christineen_US
dc.contributor.authorGonzález-Antuña, Anaen_US
dc.contributor.authorDelatour, Vincenten_US
dc.contributor.authorCavalier, Etienneen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-22T08:57:41Z-
dc.date.available2018-11-22T08:57:41Z-
dc.date.issued2017en_US
dc.identifier.issn0009-9147en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10553/45325-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Since 2010, a certified reference material ERM-DA471/IFCC has been available for cystatin C (CysC). This study aimed to assess the sources of uncertainty in results for clinical samples measured using standardized assays. Methods: This evaluation was performed in 2015 and involved 7 clinical laboratories located in France and Belgium. CysC was measured in a panel of 4 serum pools using 8 automated assays and a candidate isotope dilution mass spectrometry reference measurement procedure. Sources of uncertainty (imprecision and bias) were evaluated to calculate the relative expanded combined uncertainty for each CysC assay. Uncertainty was judged against the performance specifications derived from the biological variation model. Results: Only Siemens reagents on the Siemens systems and, to a lesser extent, DiaSys reagents on the Cobas system, provided results that met the minimum performance criterion calculated according to the intraindividual and interindividual biological variations. Although the imprecision was acceptable for almost all assays, an increase in the bias with concentration was observed for Gentian reagents, and unacceptably high biases were observed for Abbott and Roche reagents on their own systems. Conclusions: This comprehensive picture of the market situation since the release of ERM-DA471/IFCC shows that bias remains the major component of the combined uncertainty because of possible problems associated with the implementation of traceability. Although some manufacturers have clearly improved their calibration protocols relative to ERM-DA471, most of them failed to meet the criteria for acceptable CysC measurements.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.relation.ispartofClinical chemistry (Baltimore, Md.)en_US
dc.sourceClinical Chemistry [ISSN 0009-9147], v. 63, p. 833-841en_US
dc.subject32 Ciencias médicasen_US
dc.subject2403 Bioquímicaen_US
dc.subject.otherCystatin Cen_US
dc.subject.otherAssay Standardizationen_US
dc.titleMulticenter evaluation of Cystatin C measurement after assay standardizationen_US
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1373/clinchem.2016.264325en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85016998041-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid8568458100-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid7004475140-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid35232955300-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid54952853500-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid6603563396-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid7102126265-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid6603766828-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid6602892414-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid49561451800-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid36058862700-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid24398343100-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid12796112400-
dc.description.lastpage841en_US
dc.description.firstpage833en_US
dc.relation.volume63en_US
dc.investigacionCiencias de la Saluden_US
dc.type2Artículoen_US
dc.description.numberofpages9en_US
dc.utils.revisionen_US
dc.identifier.ulpgcen_US
dc.contributor.buulpgcBU-MEDen_US
dc.description.sjr2,281
dc.description.jcr8,636
dc.description.sjrqQ1
dc.description.jcrqQ1
dc.description.scieSCIE
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.fulltextSin texto completo-
crisitem.author.fullNameGonzález Antuña, Ana-
Appears in Collections:Artículos
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

62
checked on Nov 17, 2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

60
checked on Nov 17, 2024

Page view(s)

41
checked on Mar 9, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Share



Export metadata



Items in accedaCRIS are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.