Why the study?
What is the agreement among Platelet Function Analyzer-200, Multiplate analyzer, and Plateletworks Combo-25 kit in cardiology patients?
What is the agreement among Platelet Function Analyzer-200, Multiplate analyzer, and Plateletworks Combo-25 kit in cardiology patients?
There is poor agreement among three common commercial platelet function tests, indicating that relying on a single method may not provide a reliable interpretation of platelet function.
Poor agreement among platelet function assays warrants cautious single-test interpretation; leaves open need for standardization and outcome validation.
The objective of this study was to comparatively evaluate three commercial whole-blood platelet function analyzer systems: Platelet Function Analyzer-200 (PFA; Siemens Canada, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada), Multiplate analyzer (MP; Roche Diagnostics International Ltd., Rotkreuz, Switzerland), and Plateletworks Combo-25 kit (PLW; Helena Laboratories, Beaumont, TX, USA). Venipuncture was performed on 160 patients who visited a department of cardiology. Pairwise agreement among the three platelet function assays was assessed using Cohen's kappa coefficient and percent agreement within the reference limit. Kappa values with the same agonists were poor between PFA-collagen (COL; agonist)/adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and MP-ADP (-0.147), PFA-COL/ADP and PLW-ADP (0.089), MP-ADP and PLW-ADP (0.039), PFA-COL/ADP and MP-COL (-0.039), and between PFA-COL/ADP and PLW-COL (-0.067). Nonetheless, kappa values for the same assay principle with a different agonist were slightly higher between PFA-COL/ADP and PFA-COL/EPI (0.352), MP-ADP and MP-COL (0.235), and between PLW-ADP and PLW-COL (0.247). The range of percent agreement values was 38.7% to 73.8%. Therefore, various measurements of platelet function by more than one method were needed to obtain a reliable interpretation of platelet function considering low kappa coefficient and modest percent agreement rates among 3 different platelet function tests.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: