4.7 Article

Analytical considerations and plans to standardize or harmonize assays for the reference bone turnover markers PINP and β-CTX in blood

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 515, 期 -, 页码 16-20

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.12.023

关键词

Procollagen type I N-propeptide; PINP; C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen; beta-CTX; Bone turnover markers; Bone formation; Bone resorption; Standardization; Harmonization

资金

  1. MRC [MC_U147585819, MC_UP_A620_1015, G0400491, MC_U147585827, MC_UU_12011/2] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The International Osteoporosis Foundation and International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine have designated PINP and beta-CTX as reference bone turnover markers. Efforts are being made to harmonize and standardize these markers, with the development of common calibrators and reference measurement procedures, in order to establish universally acceptable practice guidelines for the management of osteoporosis.
Procollagen type I N-propeptide (PINP) and the C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (beta-CTX) in blood have been designated as reference bone turnover markers in osteoporosis by the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). The IFCC Committee on Bone Metabolism (C-BM) has examined current commercial assays and performed a multicentre study to examine the agreement between assays for PINP and beta-CTX in serum and plasma. The results of these studies will inform our work towards the harmonization of PINP assays and the standardization of beta-CTX assays in blood, with the development of common calibrators and reference measurement procedures in collaboration with the reagent manufacturing industry. Successful achievement of these goals will help develop universally acceptable practice guidelines for the management of osteoporosis with the inclusion of common reference intervals and treatment targets for PINP and beta-CTX.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据