Key result
Evaluation of point-of-care troponin devices showed concordance with central lab assays of 90% for Radiometer cTnT, 85% for Pathfast cTnI, and 75% for Radiometer cTnI, while others lacked precision.
Why the study?
Many POC cTn devices are available, but choosing among them to provide timely results when the central laboratory cannot is challenging.
How do various point-of-care cardiac troponin assays compare to central laboratory assays in terms of precision, linearity, and correlation?
Observational
How do various point-of-care cardiac troponin assays compare to central laboratory assays in terms of precision, linearity, and correlation?
Radiometer AQT90 and Pathfast point-of-care troponin assays demonstrate acceptable analytical performance compared to central laboratory assays, whereas several other common POC devices lack sufficient sensitivity or precision at the 99th percentile.
May guide selective POC troponin use where validated; leaves open outcome trials before routine adoption.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Troponin testing. Point-of-care (POC) cTn assays vs. Central laboratory assays was evaluated on Imprecision, linearity, and correlation with central laboratory assays. Evaluation of point-of-care troponin devices showed concordance with central lab assays of 90% for Radiometer cTnT, 85% for Pathfast cTnI, and 75% for Radiometer cTnI, while others lacked precision.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: