Clinical Chemistry Link to Randox Laboratories Web Site
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 35: 289-291, 1989;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McConway, M. G.
Right arrow Articles by Weston, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McConway, M. G.
Right arrow Articles by Weston, R.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 35, 289-291, Copyright © 1989 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

How sensitive are immunometric assays for thyrotropin?

MG McConway, RS Chapman, GH Beastall, E Brown, J Tillman, JA Bonar, A Hutchison, T Allison, J Finlayson and R Weston
Scottish Antibody Production Unit, Law Hospital, Lanarkshire, U.K.

The usual method for calculation of the "sensitivity" of thyrotropin immunometric assays is multireplicate analysis of the zero analyte standard. Although this is a statistically valid estimate of the scatter likely to be found in the response variable, it is unrelated to normal analytical practice (usually analysis in duplicate) and estimates intra-assay errors only. This study was designed to assess the analytical performance of 10 immunometric assays used routinely for measurement of thyrotropin in human serum. Response data from each assay were accumulated to provide (a) an estimate of "sensitivity" from multireplicate analysis and (b) an estimate of "minimum detection limit," relating directly to errors associated with routine performance and derived from a minimum of 500 duplicate analyses. We conclude that the "minimum detection limit" should be promoted as a more meaningful measure of assay performance at low analyte concentrations than the "sensitivity" derived from multireplicate analysis of the zero-analyte standard.


The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 J. Clin. Pathol.Home page
W S A Smellie
What is a significant difference between sequential laboratory results?Calf muscle pain can indicate localised vasculitis
J. Clin. Pathol., April 1, 2008; 61(4): 419 - 425.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
P. Luppa, C. Bruckner, I. Schwab, S. Hauck, S. Schmidmayr, C. Birkmayer, B. Paulus, and H. Hauptmann
7{alpha}-Biotinylated testosterone derivatives as tracers for a competitive chemiluminescence immunoassay of testosterone in serum
Clin. Chem., December 1, 1997; 43(12): 2345 - 2352.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1989 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.