It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Introduction: Anti-thyroid peroxidase autoantibodies (TPO) is an essential diagnostic tool for autoimmune disorders of the thyroid gland. However, TPO results are not always comparable due to differences between methods. Here, we aimed to investigate the differences between two modern laboratory methods for TPO measurement: electrochemiluminescence (ECLIA) and chemiluminescence microparticle (CMIA) immunoassays.
Methods: A total of 234 serum samples were tested on two methods: Cobas-e601 (ECLIA) and Alinity i (CMIA). TPO results were compared statistically both quantitatively and qualitatively (results were coded as positive/negative, according to ECLIA/CMIA reference ranges.
Results: The precisions of both methods were acceptable compared with the claims of the manufacturer. There was a very strong, but unsatisfactory correlation between the two methods (Pearson r=0.85). Passing-Bablok regression revealed a significant deviation from linearity (Cusum p<0.01) and an unacceptable quantitative relationship: intercept −7.61, slope 1.10. Moreover, a visual analysis of overall and medical decision level-focused Bland-Altman plots confirmed the lack of quantitative agreement. As for the qualitative analysis, the concordance rate between methods was 218/234 (93.1%). The agreement was considered good to very good according to the inter-rater agreement test: weighted Cohen κ = 0.805.
Conclusions: The qualitative agreement between Cobas-e601 (ECLIA) and Alinity i (CMIA) was good, therefore the two methods may be used indiscriminately for initial testing of patients suspected of thyroid gland autoimmune diseases. However, due to poor quantitative agreement, the two methods should not be used interchangeably for monitoring as the results may mislead both physicians and patients, possibly leading to medical errors.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Department of Laboratory Medicine, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, Romania; Department of Immunology, Center for Advanced Medical and Pharmaceutical Research, Romania
2 Department of Laboratory Medicine, County Emergency Clinical Hospital of Targu Mures, Romania