Impact of Sample Type on D-Dimer Screening.

IF 1.1 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-23 DOI:10.21315/mjms2024.31.2.13
Ellies Tunjung Sari Maulidyanti, Nur Vita Purwaningsih, Ainutajriani Ainutajriani, Rahma Widyastuti
{"title":"Impact of Sample Type on D-Dimer Screening.","authors":"Ellies Tunjung Sari Maulidyanti, Nur Vita Purwaningsih, Ainutajriani Ainutajriani, Rahma Widyastuti","doi":"10.21315/mjms2024.31.2.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The quality of laboratory test results depends on various factors, including sample type selection. Blood samples, such as whole blood, plasma and serum are commonly used for most clinical laboratory examinations. D-dimer parameters are frequently analysed in haematology laboratories and serve as biomarkers for coagulation activation and fibrinolysis. This study aimed to assess the impact of using different sample types on the quality of D-dimer test results.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>An observational analytical method was used. D-dimer examination was performed using the fluorescent lateral flow immunoassay method. The study sample consisted of 26 participants aged between 18 years old and 22 years old who had no blood disorders. Whole blood and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) plasma samples were used for the examination of D-dimer levels.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>D-dimer levels in 26 participants using whole blood samples had a mean value of 0.23 mg/L (230 ng/mL), while plasma samples yielded a mean value of 0.14 mg/L (140 ng/mL). D-dimer levels obtained from whole blood samples were higher than plasma samples but remained within the normal range of 0 mg/L-0.5 mg/L (0 ng/mL-500 ng/mL).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results showed that whole blood samples were more practical than plasma samples. Nevertheless, plasma samples gave results within the normal range of D-dimer values.</p>","PeriodicalId":47388,"journal":{"name":"Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11057822/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21315/mjms2024.31.2.13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The quality of laboratory test results depends on various factors, including sample type selection. Blood samples, such as whole blood, plasma and serum are commonly used for most clinical laboratory examinations. D-dimer parameters are frequently analysed in haematology laboratories and serve as biomarkers for coagulation activation and fibrinolysis. This study aimed to assess the impact of using different sample types on the quality of D-dimer test results.

Method: An observational analytical method was used. D-dimer examination was performed using the fluorescent lateral flow immunoassay method. The study sample consisted of 26 participants aged between 18 years old and 22 years old who had no blood disorders. Whole blood and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) plasma samples were used for the examination of D-dimer levels.

Results: D-dimer levels in 26 participants using whole blood samples had a mean value of 0.23 mg/L (230 ng/mL), while plasma samples yielded a mean value of 0.14 mg/L (140 ng/mL). D-dimer levels obtained from whole blood samples were higher than plasma samples but remained within the normal range of 0 mg/L-0.5 mg/L (0 ng/mL-500 ng/mL).

Conclusion: The results showed that whole blood samples were more practical than plasma samples. Nevertheless, plasma samples gave results within the normal range of D-dimer values.

样本类型对 D-二聚体筛查的影响
背景:化验结果的质量取决于多种因素,包括样本类型的选择。大多数临床实验室检查通常使用全血、血浆和血清等血液样本。D 二聚体参数是血液学实验室经常分析的指标,也是凝血活化和纤溶的生物标志物。本研究旨在评估使用不同样本类型对 D-二聚体检测结果质量的影响:方法:采用观察分析法。D-二聚体检测采用荧光侧流免疫测定法。研究样本包括 26 名年龄在 18 岁至 22 岁之间、无血液疾病的参与者。全血和乙二胺四乙酸(EDTA)血浆样本用于检测 D-二聚体水平:使用全血样本的 26 名参与者的 D-二聚体水平平均值为 0.23 毫克/升(230 纳克/毫升),而血浆样本的平均值为 0.14 毫克/升(140 纳克/毫升)。从全血样本中获得的 D-二聚体水平高于血浆样本,但仍在 0 毫克/升-0.5 毫克/升(0 纳克/毫升-500 纳克/毫升)的正常范围内:结果表明,全血样本比血浆样本更实用。结论:结果表明,全血样本比血浆样本更实用,但血浆样本的结果仍在 D-二聚体值的正常范围内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences
Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
89
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences (MJMS) is a peer-reviewed, open-access, fully online journal that is published at least six times a year. The journal’s scope encompasses all aspects of medical sciences including biomedical, allied health, clinical and social sciences. We accept high quality papers from basic to translational research especially from low & middle income countries, as classified by the United Nations & World Bank (https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/ articles/906519), with the aim that published research will benefit back the bottom billion population from these countries. Manuscripts submitted from developed or high income countries to MJMS must contain data and information that will benefit the socio-health and bio-medical sciences of these low and middle income countries. The MJMS editorial board consists of internationally regarded clinicians and scientists from low and middle income countries.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信