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


     

Clinical Chemistry 38: 1345-1349, 1992;
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pilo, A.
Right arrow Articles by Signorini, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pilo, A.
Right arrow Articles by Signorini, C.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 38, 1345-1349, Copyright © 1992 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Interassay variability of immunometric methods for thyrotropin in an external quality assessment survey: evidence that functional sensitivity is not always adequate for clinical decisions

A Pilo, GC Zucchelli, R Malvano, A Clerico, G Iervasi and C Signorini
CNR Institute of Clinical Physiology, Pisa, Italy.

We investigated the ability of current immunometric methods for thyrotropin (TSH; thyroid-stimulating hormone) to distinguish between low-normal and subnormal hormone concentrations by using the data from an external quality assessment (EQA) survey in 1990. We computed the interassay (between-run) precision profiles from results from 101 laboratories, which used the five most popular kits in the survey; during the control period (one year) each laboratory assayed 4 EQA pools distributed (as hidden replicates) in five occasions. The interassay CV was relatively low (9-13%) for three pools in the normal TSH range (greater than 0.8 milli-int. unit/L) but markedly higher (30- 40%, except for one more precise kit) in the subnormal range (0.2 milli- int. unit/L). We calculated the effect of the between-run variability on the diagnostic accuracy (discrimination between normal and subnormal values) for three representative TSH concentrations: 0.2, 0.4, and 0.5 milli-int. unit/L (0.3 milli-int. unit/L was considered the lower normal limit). The three concentrations were reasonably discriminated (P less than or equal to 5%), and only one kit showed a between-run CV less than 18% at 0.2 milli-int. unit/L. For the other four less-precise kits, only the higher TSH value (0.5 milli-int. unit/L) could be classified with an acceptable diagnostic reliability. With the most precise kit, one can distinguish two TSH concentrations in the 0.3-0.5 milli-int. unit/L range that differ by at least 30%; with the other kits, differences greater than 50-60% are needed for reliable discrimination. Thus many laboratories fail to achieve the functional sensitivity of a second-generation assay, even if they use immunometric methods. TSH assays with a better interassay precision in the low concentration range are needed.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1992 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.