Suppr超能文献

IgG亚类定量:The Binding Site SPA® 人检测法的分析性能及与西门子BNII® 检测法的比较

IgG subclasses quantitation: Analytical performance of The Binding Site SPA® human assay and comparison with Siemens BNII® assay.

作者信息

Sarnago Ana, Pascual Rosa M, Moreno María J, Laíz Begoña, Fuster Oscar

机构信息

Service of Clinical Pathology, La Fe University Hospital, Av Fernando Abril Martorell 106, 46026, Valencia, Spain.

Service of Clinical Pathology, La Fe University Hospital, Av Fernando Abril Martorell 106, 46026, Valencia, Spain.

出版信息

Clin Biochem. 2018 Jan;51:85-89. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.09.004. Epub 2017 Sep 11.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Accurate evaluation of analyzers is highly recommended before these devices are broadly introduced for routine testing. Concerning quantification of IgG subclasses (IgGSc), standardization has not yet been reached and thus different assays might lead to different results. Here we report the analytical performances of The Binding Site (TBS) SPA® human IgGSc assay and the concordance with the Siemens BNII® human IgGSc assay.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We evaluated precision, LoB, LoD and linearity of TBS SPA® human IgGSc immunoassay. Quantitation of IgGSc in 53 patients' serum samples was performed in parallel on both analyzers. Results from both assays were compared.

RESULTS

Analytical performances of the TBS SPA® human IgGSc assay are acceptable for routine clinical use. According to the method comparison study, TBS assay measures lower values than Siemens assay for IgG1 and IgG4, whereas for IgG2 and IgG3 TBS provides greater values. All assays present a proportional bias, greater in the case of IgG3 and IgG4 assays. Individual subclass agreement, based on the classification of samples within three categories (low, normal and high) according to assay-specific reference intervals, range from 75% (IgG1) to 92% (IgG2). However, total classification agreement over all four subclasses only account for 55% of samples.

CONCLUSION

Results obtained from both assays are not interchangeable. Standardization of IgGSc assay and review of the reference ranges must be accomplished in order to achieve a higher degree of agreement between different methods.

摘要

目的

在广泛引入这些设备进行常规检测之前,强烈建议对分析仪进行准确评估。关于IgG亚类(IgGSc)的定量,尚未实现标准化,因此不同的检测方法可能会导致不同的结果。在此,我们报告了The Binding Site(TBS)SPA®人IgGSc检测方法的分析性能以及与西门子BNII®人IgGSc检测方法的一致性。

设计与方法

我们评估了TBS SPA®人IgGSc免疫检测方法的精密度、检测限(LoB)、定量限(LoD)和线性。在两台分析仪上同时对53例患者血清样本中的IgGSc进行定量。比较了两种检测方法的结果。

结果

TBS SPA®人IgGSc检测方法的分析性能可用于常规临床应用。根据方法比较研究,TBS检测方法测得的IgG1和IgG4值低于西门子检测方法,而对于IgG2和IgG3,TBS检测方法测得的值更高。所有检测方法均存在比例偏差,在IgG3和IgG4检测中偏差更大。根据特定检测方法的参考区间将样本分为三类(低、正常和高),各亚类的个体一致性范围为75%(IgG1)至92%(IgG2)。然而,所有四个亚类的总分类一致性仅占样本的55%。

结论

两种检测方法获得的结果不可互换。必须完成IgGSc检测方法的标准化并审查参考范围,以实现不同方法之间更高程度的数据一致性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验