2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2007.06.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Analytic evaluation of the β-human chorionic gonadotropin assay on the Abbott IMx and Elecsys2010 for its use in doping control

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Either a linearity regression analysis for the result obtained from the 2 instruments or methods and calculate the correlation coefficient »r« or error-index plot using equation 7 ( Table 1 ) can be used to assess the acceptability of comparability. The test-method results ( y -axis) are displayed versus the comparative method ( x -axis) if the two methods correlate perfectly, the data pairs plotted as concentrations values from the reference method ( x ) versus the evaluation method ( y ) will produce a straight line, with a slope of 1.0, a y-intercept of 0, and a correlation coefficient ( r ) of 1 [56] . The results are considered to be comparable if no more than 10% of results' error-index exceed +1 or are less than -1 or the correlation coefficient »r« more than or equal 0.95 [57] [58] [59] .…”
Section: Systematic Errormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Either a linearity regression analysis for the result obtained from the 2 instruments or methods and calculate the correlation coefficient »r« or error-index plot using equation 7 ( Table 1 ) can be used to assess the acceptability of comparability. The test-method results ( y -axis) are displayed versus the comparative method ( x -axis) if the two methods correlate perfectly, the data pairs plotted as concentrations values from the reference method ( x ) versus the evaluation method ( y ) will produce a straight line, with a slope of 1.0, a y-intercept of 0, and a correlation coefficient ( r ) of 1 [56] . The results are considered to be comparable if no more than 10% of results' error-index exceed +1 or are less than -1 or the correlation coefficient »r« more than or equal 0.95 [57] [58] [59] .…”
Section: Systematic Errormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The values in Table 3 were determined by highly sensitive immunofluorometric assays and are strictly valid only for these (Alfthan et al, 1992a). The calibration of assays varies and in a study on the suitability of two commercial hCG assays for doping control with urine samples, a 30% difference in calibration was observed (Shahzad et al, 2007) and twofold differences are observed in quality assessment schemes (Alfthan H and Stenman UH, unpublished). An upper reference limit for serum hCG of 5 IU/l is recommended in most textbooks but higher upper reference limits need to be used for many commercial methods.…”
Section: Reference Values For Various Forms Of Hcgmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[1,7] There are examples of earlier published studies in doping control context, which evaluate the performance and establish reference values for urinary assays measuring mainly hCG and hCGb, [18][19][20][21] and to minor extent for those assays which recognize also the hCGbcf. [18,19] The aim of this work was to implement the new WADA guideline and to evaluate two independent immunoassays, one for initial testing and the other for confirmatory analysis, for the routine analysis of urinary hCG for doping control purposes. The assay applied to the initial testing (Siemens Immulite 2000 XPi hCG assay) recognizes most of the documented hCG variants [22] whereas the confirmatory assay (Perkin-Elmer DELFIA Xpress hCG) measures intact and nicked hCG only.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As an example of the analytical issues is the fact that about half of the immunoreactivity of hCG in urine consists of hCGβcf (which most assays do not detect), whereas the urinary concentration of hCGβ (detected by the assays) is low . There are examples of earlier published studies in doping control context, which evaluate the performance and establish reference values for urinary assays measuring mainly hCG and hCGβ, and to minor extent for those assays which recognize also the hCGβcf . The aim of this work was to implement the new WADA guideline and to evaluate two independent immunoassays, one for initial testing and the other for confirmatory analysis, for the routine analysis of urinary hCG for doping control purposes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%