Why the study?
Do five currently available cardiac troponin I methods differ in their analytical performance and diagnostic accuracy?
Do five currently available cardiac troponin I methods differ in their analytical performance and diagnostic accuracy?
Five currently available cardiac troponin I methods demonstrate satisfactory analytical performance and comparable diagnostic accuracy despite differences in precision.
Comparable diagnostic accuracy supports flexible troponin assay adoption in labs; leaves open whether precision differences affect clinical outcomes.
Troponin I is an important cardiac biomarker to define the presence of cardiac injury, and several methods have been introduced. We compared five currently available cardiac troponin I methods to evaluate their performance. Methods: The comparison included the measurement of within-run and between-day imprecision, 99(superscript th) percentile of reference limit, correlation and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Results: The higher total imprecision is found with the AxSYM system (total CV: 21.80%), whereas the Vitros ECi system demonstrates the better precision (total CV: 5.13%). The 99(superscript th) percentiles of reference limit were 0.05, 0.22, 0.09, 0.03 and 0.10 ng/mL for ADV AxSYM, Immulite 2500, Vitros ECi, VIDAS Ultra and Dimension RxL, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the area under the ROC curves among methods (p>0.05). Conclusions: These five methods were satisfactory for the determination of cardiac troponin I and easy to perform.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chien et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: