根据《体外诊断条例》(IVDR)比较测量相同分析物的两种不同技术

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Noel Stierlin, Andreas Hemmerle, Karin Jung, Jörg Thumfart, Martin Risch, Lorenz Risch
{"title":"根据《体外诊断条例》(IVDR)比较测量相同分析物的两种不同技术","authors":"Noel Stierlin, Andreas Hemmerle, Karin Jung, Jörg Thumfart, Martin Risch, Lorenz Risch","doi":"10.1515/labmed-2024-0052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives This study systematically compared the performance and comparability of two medical laboratory analytical instruments, the conventional wet chemistry analyzer (cobas) and the dry slide technology (Vitros), across various clinical chemistry assays. Methods The evaluation focused on assessing imprecision, inaccuracy, recovery, and method comparison using leftover patient serum samples. Results The results indicated good to very good agreement for most clinical chemistry analytes, with larger differences observed for comparison of serum patient samples on albumin and protein. Conclusions Understanding and acknowledging method-specific variations, are crucial for accurate result interpretation in clinical laboratories. This study contributes valuable insights to ongoing discussions on method standardization.","PeriodicalId":55986,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Laboratory Medicine","volume":"187 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of two different technologies measuring the same analytes in view of the In Vitro Diagnostica Regulation (IVDR)\",\"authors\":\"Noel Stierlin, Andreas Hemmerle, Karin Jung, Jörg Thumfart, Martin Risch, Lorenz Risch\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/labmed-2024-0052\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives This study systematically compared the performance and comparability of two medical laboratory analytical instruments, the conventional wet chemistry analyzer (cobas) and the dry slide technology (Vitros), across various clinical chemistry assays. Methods The evaluation focused on assessing imprecision, inaccuracy, recovery, and method comparison using leftover patient serum samples. Results The results indicated good to very good agreement for most clinical chemistry analytes, with larger differences observed for comparison of serum patient samples on albumin and protein. Conclusions Understanding and acknowledging method-specific variations, are crucial for accurate result interpretation in clinical laboratories. This study contributes valuable insights to ongoing discussions on method standardization.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55986,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Laboratory Medicine\",\"volume\":\"187 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Laboratory Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/labmed-2024-0052\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/labmed-2024-0052","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 本研究系统地比较了两种医学实验室分析仪器(传统湿化学分析仪(cobas)和干玻片技术(Vitros))在各种临床化学测定中的性能和可比性。方法 评估的重点是评估不精确性、不准确性、回收率,以及使用剩余病人血清样本进行方法比较。结果 结果表明,大多数临床化学分析物的一致性良好或非常好,在比较病人血清样本的白蛋白和蛋白质时发现较大差异。结论 了解和认识方法的特异性差异对于临床实验室准确解读结果至关重要。这项研究为正在进行的方法标准化讨论提供了宝贵的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of two different technologies measuring the same analytes in view of the In Vitro Diagnostica Regulation (IVDR)
Objectives This study systematically compared the performance and comparability of two medical laboratory analytical instruments, the conventional wet chemistry analyzer (cobas) and the dry slide technology (Vitros), across various clinical chemistry assays. Methods The evaluation focused on assessing imprecision, inaccuracy, recovery, and method comparison using leftover patient serum samples. Results The results indicated good to very good agreement for most clinical chemistry analytes, with larger differences observed for comparison of serum patient samples on albumin and protein. Conclusions Understanding and acknowledging method-specific variations, are crucial for accurate result interpretation in clinical laboratories. This study contributes valuable insights to ongoing discussions on method standardization.
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
Journal of Laboratory Medicine
Journal of Laboratory Medicine Mathematics-Discrete Mathematics and Combinatorics
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Laboratory Medicine (JLM) is a bi-monthly published journal that reports on the latest developments in laboratory medicine. Particular focus is placed on the diagnostic aspects of the clinical laboratory, although technical, regulatory, and educational topics are equally covered. The Journal specializes in the publication of high-standard, competent and timely review articles on clinical, methodological and pathogenic aspects of modern laboratory diagnostics. These reviews are critically reviewed by expert reviewers and JLM’s Associate Editors who are specialists in the various subdisciplines of laboratory medicine. In addition, JLM publishes original research articles, case reports, point/counterpoint articles and letters to the editor, all of which are peer reviewed by at least two experts in the field.
×
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