1976
DOI: 10.1378/chest.70.2.217
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of the Sensitivity of Commercially Available Digoxin Radioimmunoassay Kits

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0
2

Year Published

1978
1978
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
2
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…There are now several commercial kits for the immunochemical measurement of serum prostatic acid phosphatase (sPAP); these include ra dioimmunoassay (RIA) and enzyme-linked immunosor bent assays (ELISA) [Grenner and Schmidtberger, 1979] using polyclonal antisera and more recently a monoclonal antisera [Wange t al., 1981]. Comparisons of the perfor mance of a number of these kits have been published [Bruce et al, 1981;Kubasik and Dohm, 1980;Griffiths et al, 1982;Brody et al, 1981], So far none of them has unique properties, their choice being influenced by mar keting pressures and convenience, and arguments about the influence of the source of the sPAP antigen are still for elevated sPAP to increase exponentially in patients with metastatic prostatic cancer which was not controlled by treatment, but the duration of these studies was short compared to the history of the disease [Cooper et al, 1981]. Other investigators have found this ELISA for PAP has a comparable sensitivity to other types of immunoassay [Bauer et al, 1981;Griffiths et al, 1982].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are now several commercial kits for the immunochemical measurement of serum prostatic acid phosphatase (sPAP); these include ra dioimmunoassay (RIA) and enzyme-linked immunosor bent assays (ELISA) [Grenner and Schmidtberger, 1979] using polyclonal antisera and more recently a monoclonal antisera [Wange t al., 1981]. Comparisons of the perfor mance of a number of these kits have been published [Bruce et al, 1981;Kubasik and Dohm, 1980;Griffiths et al, 1982;Brody et al, 1981], So far none of them has unique properties, their choice being influenced by mar keting pressures and convenience, and arguments about the influence of the source of the sPAP antigen are still for elevated sPAP to increase exponentially in patients with metastatic prostatic cancer which was not controlled by treatment, but the duration of these studies was short compared to the history of the disease [Cooper et al, 1981]. Other investigators have found this ELISA for PAP has a comparable sensitivity to other types of immunoassay [Bauer et al, 1981;Griffiths et al, 1982].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, FDR Na (fractional distal reabsorption of sodium), i.e the percentage of the distally delivered sodium reabsorbed in the post-proximal nephron segments, was calculated as [(FE Li − FE Na )/FE Li ] × 100 in order to calculate FDE Na (fractional excretion of sodium from the distal tubule) as 100 − FDR Na . Plasma catecholamines were determined by HPLC [32], and PRA and aldosterone were determined by RIA [33,34]. Plasma progesterone levels were measured using an enzyme immunoassay (Kryptor; CIS Bio International).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Über die: labortechnischen Aspekte der immunologischen Phosphatasebestimmung liegt ein ausgiebiges Publikationsmaterial vor (2,7,10,12,(16)(17)(18)(19), die Problematik betrifft die Isolierung und Reinheit der Prostataphosphatase als Antigen, die Herstellung des spezifischen Antiserums, die Markierung mit Isotopen (Radioimmunassay) oder Markerenzymen (Enzymimmunassay), sowie eine Reihe analytischer Verfahren (16,17,19). Bedingt durch das heterogene Saure-Phosphatase-Isoenzym-System ist die Spezifität der derzeit zur Verfügung stehenden Testsysteme recht unterschiedlich, ein einheitlicher Standard ist nicht gegeben, die Empfindlichkeit (Sensitivität) schwankt z. T. beträchtlich (2,15,22). Mit den Parametern der Sensitivität und der Spezifität befinden wir uns jedoch bereits in der klinischen Anwendung.…”
Section: G H Jacobiunclassified
“…Abgesehen davon, daß die unterschiedlichen Eigenschaften bezüglich der Sensitivität und der Spezifität der verschiedenen Testsysteme beim Ergebnisvergleich der verschiedenen Autoren nur ausnahmsweise Berücksichtigung finden (2,15,22), haben eine Reihe von Ungereimtheiten in den Fragestellungen klinischer Analysen über Phosphatase-Konzentrationsbestimmungen das derzeit zu zeichnende Bild verwässert.…”
Section: Schwachpunkte Der Klinischen Analysenunclassified