Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Greaves, Ronda / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 3.556

CiteScore 2017: 2.34

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 1.114
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.188

Online
ISSN
1437-4331
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 38, Issue 8

Issues

Comparative Multicentre Study of a Panel of Thyroid Tests Using Different Automated Immunoassay Platforms and Specimens at High Risk of Antibody Interference

Julie Martel / Normand Després / Charaf E. Ahnadi / Jean-François Lachance / James E. Monticello / Guy Fink / Anna Ardemagni / Giuseppe Banfi / John Tovey / Peter Dykes / Rhys John / Jinny Jeffery / Andrew M. Grant
Published Online: 2005-06-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2000.112

Abstract

The introduction of automation for immunoassays in recent years has brought about important and evident improvements in assay precision. Increasing standardization and comparability between platforms should enable the development of clinical guidelines and diagnostic algorithms for appropriate clinical decision making. A continuing source of variation between different automated immunoassay platforms is the sporadic effect of interfering antibodies or substances, thus causing aberrant results not supporting the patient's clinical status.

The aim of this study was to describe current thyroid panel variation between automated immunoassay platforms including population specimens at risk of antibody interference. A multisite design with laboratories in three different countries using four different automated immunoassay platforms (Roche-Boehringer Mannheim Elecsys® (Italy), Roche-Boehringer Mannheim ES300® (Wales), Bayer Immuno 1® and the Bayer ACS:180® evaluated the thyroid panel of thyrotropin (TSH), triiodothyromine (T3), free thryroxine (FT4) and free triiodothyronine (FT3). A common set of 158 randomly selected patient samples of non-thyroid and thyroid disorders, with and without treatment, was tested. Included were 62 patient samples at risk for endogenous antibody interference with high antimicrosomal antibody, anti-TSH receptor antibody and increased rheumatoid factor sub-populations.

Across all controls and between platforms, precision measurements were comparable and varied between 0.7% and 12.8% for TSH, 2.8% and 13% for FT4, 1.8% and 10.5% for FT3 and 3.1% and 16% for T3 assay. Acceptable correlation and reproducibility were found between the three Bayer Immuno 1 platforms at each country's site with all four thyroid panel assays demonstrating r-values of 0.989 to 1.000 and slopes of 0.915 to 1.078. Comparisons between the different platforms showed acceptable correlation for all thyroid panel assays. Specimens containing rheumatoid factor were associated with a significantly increased variation between systems for the FT4 and FT3 assays (p < 0.01). This effect did not appear to be selective for a given platform. For specimens with raised autoimmune antibodies and therefore at risk of assay antibody interference, no variation could be observed between the platforms.

About the article

Published Online: 2005-06-01

Published in Print: 2000-08-21


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Volume 38, Issue 8, Pages 785–793, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2000.112.

Export Citation

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Margarita S. Mikhina, Vitaliy A. Ioutsi, and Ekaterina A. Troshina
Annals of the Russian academy of medical sciences, 2018, Volume 73, Number 4, Page 279
[2]
Elisa Rubino, Innocenzo Rainero, Francesca Garino, Costanza Vicentini, Flora Govone, Alessandro Vacca, Annalisa Gai, Salvatore Gentile, Guido Govone, Federico Ragazzoni, Lorenzo Pinessi, Maria Teresa Giordana, and Paolo Limone
Cephalalgia, 2018, Page 033310241876991
[3]
Pilar I Beato-Víbora and S Alejo-González
International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2016, Volume 15, Number 1
[4]
Enaam T. Elhaj, Ishag Adam, Mohamed A. Ahmed, and Mohamed F. Lutfi
BMC Physiology, 2016, Volume 16, Number 1
[5]
Jacqueline Jonklaas
AACE Clinical Case Reports, 2016, Volume 2, Number 4, Page e296
[6]
Klaus Kapelari, Christine Kirchlechner, Wolfgang Högler, Katharina Schweitzer, Irene Virgolini, and Roy Moncayo
BMC Endocrine Disorders, 2008, Volume 8, Number 1
[7]
Joshua M. Estrada, Danielle Soldin, Timothy M. Buckey, Kenneth D. Burman, and Offie P. Soldin
Thyroid, 2014, Volume 24, Number 3, Page 411
[8]
George G Klee
Clinics in Laboratory Medicine, 2004, Volume 24, Number 1, Page 1
[9]
Jianghong Gu, Offie P. Soldin, and Steven J. Soldin
Clinical Biochemistry, 2007, Volume 40, Number 18, Page 1386
[10]
Offie P. Soldin and Steven J. Soldin
Clinical Biochemistry, 2011, Volume 44, Number 1, Page 89
[11]
Thyroid, 2003, Volume 13, Number 1, Page 104
[12]
Jacqueline Jonklaas and Steven J. Soldin
Thyroid, 2008, Volume 18, Number 12, Page 1303
[13]
Offie P Soldin, Danielle Soldin, and Marisol Sastoque
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, 2007, Volume 29, Number 5, Page 553
[14]
Offie P Soldin
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, 2006, Volume 28, Number 1, Page 8

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in