|
|
||||||||
Articles |
1
Dipartimento di Medicina di Laboratorio, Università-Ospedale, 35100 Padova, Italy.
2
Laboratorio Analisi Chimico Cliniche 1, Azienda
Ospedaliera Spedali Civili, 25125 Brescia, Italy.
3
Laboratorio Analisi Chimico Cliniche, Ospedali Riuniti,
24100 Bergamo, Italy.
4
Laboratorio Analisi Chimico Cliniche, Casa di Cura S.
Maria, 21053 Castellanza VA, Italy.
5
Laboratorio Analisi Chimico Cliniche, Azienda
Opedaliera Maggiore della Carità, 28100 Novara, Italy.
a Author for correspondence. Fax 39-030-3995369; e-mail panteghi{at}osp.unibs.it
Background: Lacking assay standardization, different myoglobin methods may produce results that differ significantly.
Methods: A multicenter study was carried out to compare the analytical performance of five commercially available assays for myoglobin measurement. Linearity, imprecision, interferences, and method comparison were studied according to NCCLS guidelines, whereas reference values were determined following IFCC recommendations.
Results: The BNA and Opus showed relatively high imprecision (all
but one total CV >7.4%). Other assays showed lower CVs, but they
varied among laboratories, particularly at a normal myoglobin
concentration (Access, 6.011%; Hitachi, 3.85.8%; Stratus,
3.46.5%). Results were lower in anticoagulated samples on the
Access, in heparin and citrate samples on the Stratus, and in citrate
samples on the BNA and Opus, and increased in heparin and EDTA samples
on the Hitachi. Use of separator gel produced results significantly
lower (P <0.001) on the Hitachi and higher
(P = 0.016) on the Opus. Bilirubin, turbidity, and
hemoglobin had no effect on evaluated methods, but rheumatoid factor
affected the Access. In method comparisons, high correlation
coefficients (
0.98) were obtained. The Stratus gave higher results;
however, the Access and BNA gave the lowest. The following upper
reference limits (µg/L) for men and women, respectively, were
obtained: Access, 70 and 52; BNA, 51 and 49; Hitachi, 67 and 58; Opus,
80 and 50; and Stratus, 86 and 63.
Conclusion: The possibility of high imprecision and marked disagreement among commercial myoglobin assays should be carefully considered in clinical practice.
The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:
![]() |
D. H. Wilson, G. Williams, R. Herrmann, D. Wiesner, and P. Brookhart Issues in Immunoassay Standardization: The ARCHITECT Folate Model for Intermethod Harmonization Clin. Chem., April 1, 2005; 51(4): 684 - 687. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |