Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: The serum insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) level is accepted to diagnose the growth hormone (GH) status. Here, we evaluated the DRG IGF-I 600 ELISA, DSL IGF-I ELISA, IDS OCTEIA IGF-I, Mediagnost IGF-I-ELISA, and the Siemens Immulite 2500 IGF-I in comparison to the former Nichols Advantage IGF-I assay. METHODS: Imprecision was determined by use of a serum pool and commercial control materials. Accuracy was evaluated by means of a method comparison to Nichols in 173 serum samples of GH deficient patients. RESULTS: The Siemens and the IDS IGF-I assays showed the lowest imprecision with coefficients of variation up to 3.6% and 6.9%, respectively. Both correlated best to Nichols (Siemens: y=0.667X+8.8 microg/L, r=0.950; IDS: y=0.527 X+4.6 microg/L, r=0.927) with the lowest dispersion of residuals from a linear equation. The DSL assay had the highest comparability to Nichols (y=1.000 X+35.5 microg/L, r=0.864), but with a considerable scattering. CONCLUSIONS: To yield IGF-I determination comparable to the former Nichols IGF-I, either the Siemens or the IDS assay should be applied, and the results should be converted by a linear method transformation. Where a conversion factor is not desired, the DSL assay should be selected.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Krebs et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: