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


     


Clinical Chemistry 54: 1245, 2008; 10.1373/clinchem.2008.108282
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
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 Kricka, L. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kricka, L. J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Clinical Case Studies
(Clinical Chemistry. 2008;54:1245.)
© 2008 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.


Clinical Case Studies

Commentary

Larry J. Kricka

Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA.

Address correspondence to the author at: Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 7.103 Founders Pavilion, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, 3400 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail kricka@mail.med.upenn.edu

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

Interferences in laboratory tests, immunoassays in particular, continue to be a significant challenge in clinical laboratory practice (1). A raised awareness to this type of analytical problem is important if laboratories are to avoid reporting incorrect test results. In spite of all efforts by the diagnostic community, interferences still occur, sometimes with disastrous consequences for the patient.

These 2 cases illustrate 2 different circumstances that led to the suspicion of assay interference. In the case reported by van der Watt et al., it was discordance in thyroid test results that alerted the laboratory, and in the case reported by Kellogg et al., investigation of a possible laboratory artifact was a component in the standard of care for the suspected . . . [Full Text of this Article]




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


Home page
J. Clin. Pathol.Home page
A A A Ismail
Interference from endogenous antibodies in automated immunoassays: what laboratorians need to know
J. Clin. Pathol., August 1, 2009; 62(8): 673 - 678.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann Clin BiochemHome page
B E Fritz, R J Hauke, and D F Stickle
New onset of heterophilic antibody interference in prostate-specific antigen measurement occurring during the period of post-prostatectomy prostate-specific antigen monitoring
Ann Clin Biochem, May 1, 2009; 46(3): 253 - 256.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.