Why the study?
How do different methods for measuring urinary-free cortisol compare to a GCMS reference method in terms of bias and precision?
How do different methods for measuring urinary-free cortisol compare to a GCMS reference method in terms of bias and precision?
Urinary-free cortisol measurement methods show significant bias and variation compared to a GCMS reference method, highlighting the need for standardization.
UFC assay results warrant cautious clinical interpretation; leaves open standardization against GCMS reference.
The performance of methods used for the measurement of urinary-free cortisol (UFC) has been monitored in the UK by an external quality assessment scheme (EQAS). Bias and variation of the bias (VAR) from the all laboratories trimmed mean (ALTM) show that mean bias ranged from -15.5% to +83.1% and mean VAR from 9.3% to 53.2%. The dominant kit methods had a bias range of -4.2% and +56.9% and VAR between 11.4% and 18.4%. Recovery of added cortisol ranged from 74.9% to 207.2%. The precision of the estimate of urinary-free cortisol was different for different methods and changed with concentration. When methods were compared with a gas chromatography mass spectroscopy (GCMS) target there was a linear correlation between per cent bias from the ALTM and from the GCMS result with the ALTM averaging 63.1% greater than the GCMS value.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Geoffrey Holder (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: