4.6 Article

Immunoassay of anti-thyroid autoantibodies: High analytical variability in second generation methods

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE
卷 40, 期 6, 页码 568-573

出版社

WALTER DE GRUYTER & CO
DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2002.098

关键词

autoimmune thyroid disease; anti-thyroid autoantibodies; immunoassay; thyroperoxidase; thyroglobulin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of highly sensitive immunometric methods in clinical laboratories to assay antithyroid antibodies has progressively expanded in recent years but it is not known whether the new techniques have improved the analytical variability connected with the preceding methodologies. The Italian Society of Laboratory Medicine Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases conducted a collaborative study with the biomedical industry to evaluate the degree of standardization of the new analytical procedures. Twelve companies agreed to participate in the study on the search for antithyroglobulin (anti-Tg) and antithyroperoxidase (anti-TPO) antibodies in nine sera from patients with autoimmune thyroiditis, and in six sera from patients with non-autoimmune thyroid disease; ten immunometric and three immunofluorescence methods were employed. Agreement of qualitative results was close to 90% for anti-Tg and 97% for anti-TPO, with no important differences between the methods; variability of the quantitative results, expressed as CV% of absolute (in IU/ml) and relative (in cut-off concentration multiples) values was 93.9% and 102.3%, respectively, for anti-Tg, and 75.5% and 62.9%, respectively, for anti-TPO. These findings show that despite the progressive improvement in the analytical techniques, the variability between methods for the assay of anti-Tg and anti-TPO is still unexpectedly high, and probably due to several factors such as uncertainty in defining the positive cutoff concentration, absence of adequate international reference preparations, modality of autoantigen purification, and analytical variability in the assay procedures.

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

4.6
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