Clinical Chemistry
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 40: 358-363, 1994;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 Masters, P. W.
Right arrow Articles by Cooney, J. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Masters, P. W.
Right arrow Articles by Cooney, J. M.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 40, 358-363, Copyright © 1994 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Commercial assays for serum osteocalcin give clinically discordant results

PW Masters, RG Jones, DA Purves, EH Cooper and JM Cooney
Diagnostic Development Unit, University of Leeds, Old Medical School, UK.

Serum samples from 9 healthy controls and from subjects with primary hyperparathyroidism (n = 5), Paget disease (n = 3), pregnancy (n = 5), glucocorticoid therapy (n = 5), postmenopausal osteoporosis (n = 10), and renal failure (n = 10) were used to assess the clinical agreement among eight commercially available assay kits for osteocalcin (OC). These kits differ in their assay configurations (six radioimmunoassays, two immunoradiometric assays), standards (five bovine, three human), and antibodies (six polyclonal, two monoclonal). Individual results were divided by the mean OC of the control subjects for each assay and expressed as percentage deviations. The expected wide variation in absolute OC concentrations between kits was only partially reduced by this transformation. Agreement was equally poor when absolute OC concentrations were compared with the reference ranges quoted by the manufacturers. The discordance was particularly marked in renal failure, presumably because of immunoreactive fragments, and in osteoporosis. Systematic differences could not be attributed to assay format, species source of standard, or antibody specificity. We conclude that results cannot be compared between assays even when normalized against healthy subjects, and that standardization is needed.


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


Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
L.-o. Chailurkit, B. Ongphiphadhanakul, N. Piaseu, S. Saetung, and R. Rajatanavin
Biochemical Markers of Bone Turnover and Response of Bone Mineral Density to Intervention in Early Postmenopausal Women: An Experience in a Clinical Laboratory
Clin. Chem., June 1, 2001; 47(6): 1083 - 1088.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
S.-M. Kakonen, J. Hellman, M. Karp, P. Laaksonen, K. J. Obrant, H. K. Vaananen, T. Lovgren, and K. Pettersson
Development and Evaluation of Three Immunofluorometric Assays That Measure Different Forms of Osteocalcin in Serum
Clin. Chem., March 1, 2000; 46(3): 332 - 337.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
N. B. Watts
Clinical Utility of Biochemical Markers of Bone Remodeling
Clin. Chem., August 1, 1999; 45(8): 1359 - 1368.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
J.-C. Souberbielle, D. Marque, P. Bonnet, P. Herviaux, and C. Sachs
Simple Method to Evaluate Specificity of Osteocalcin Immunoassays
Clin. Chem., September 1, 1997; 43(9): 1663 - 1665.
[Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.