Analytical Error And Interference And Immunoassay
Alerts Search this journal Advanced Journal Search » Impact Factor:2.119 | Ranking:Medical Laboratory Technology 11 out of 30 | 5-Year Impact Factor:1.972 | 5-Year Ranking:Medical Laboratory Technology 13 out of 30 Source:2016 Release of Journal Citation Reports, Source: 2015 Web of Science Data Analytical error and interference in immunoassay: minimizing risk Catharine M Sturgeon1⇑ Adie Viljoen2 1Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH16 4SA 2Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, Hertfordshire SG1 4AB, UK Corresponding author: Catharine M Sturgeon. Email: C.Sturgeon{at}ed.ac.uk Next Section Abstract Although generally robust, immunoassays remain vulnerable to occasional analytical errors that may have serious implications for patient care. Sporadic errors that occur as a result of properties of the specimen are particularly difficult to detect. They may be due to the presence of cross-reacting substances, antianalyte antibodies or antireagent antibodies, all of which may lead to erroneously high or low results. Low results may be observed for tumour markers due to high-dose hooking in the presence of very high analyte concentrations. Erroneous results can occur unexpectedly with any specimen and there is no practical means of identifying specimens likely to cause problems in immunoassays. The possibility of interference should always be considered when results do not appear to be in accord with the clinical picture. Errors can occur in even the best-managed laboratories and their early investigation is always desirable. If there is any doubt whatsoever about a result, clinical staff should be encouraged to contact the laboratory. Investigations for possible interference that can be undertaken in most laboratories include testing for linearity on dilution, recovery experiments, treatment with heterophilic blocking tubes and confirmation using a different method. It may be desirable to consult specialist laboratories if more complex studies are necessary. Informing clinical and laboratory staff of the ever-present possibility of unexpected interference, ensuring brief clinical details are available to laboratory staff, and above all facilitating excellent communication between laboratory and clinical staff are key to minimizing the risk of clinical mismanagement due to unsuspected interference. Previous SectionNext Section Introduction Immunoassay remains the method of choice in the clinical laboratory for analysis of many analytes, particularly complex heterogeneous molecules. It is not surprising, since immunoassays i
Request full-text Analytical error and interference in immunoassay: Minimizing riskArticle in Annals of Clinical Biochemistry 48(Pt 5):418-32 · July 2011 with 68 ReadsDOI: 10.1258/acb.2011.011073 · Source: PubMed1st Catharine M Sturgeon2nd Adie Viljoen35.85 · UnknownAbstractAlthough generally robust, immunoassays remain vulnerable to occasional analytical errors that may have serious implications for patient care. Sporadic errors that occur as a result of properties of the specimen are particularly difficult to detect. They may be due to the presence of cross-reacting substances, antianalyte antibodies http://acb.sagepub.com/content/48/5/418.full or antireagent antibodies, all of which may lead to erroneously high or low results. Low results may be observed for tumour markers due to high-dose hooking in the presence of very high analyte concentrations. Erroneous results can occur unexpectedly with any specimen and there is no practical means of identifying specimens likely to cause problems https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51486603_Analytical_error_and_interference_in_immunoassay_Minimizing_risk in immunoassays. The possibility of interference should always be considered when results do not appear to be in accord with the clinical picture. Errors can occur in even the best-managed laboratories and their early investigation is always desirable. If there is any doubt whatsoever about a result, clinical staff should be encouraged to contact the laboratory. Investigations for possible interference that can be undertaken in most laboratories include testing for linearity on dilution, recovery experiments, treatment with heterophilic blocking tubes and confirmation using a different method. It may be desirable to consult specialist laboratories if more complex studies are necessary. Informing clinical and laboratory staff of the ever-present possibility of unexpected interference, ensuring brief clinical details are available to laboratory staff, and above all facilitating excellent communication between laboratory and clinical staff are key to minimizing the risk of clinical mismanagement due to unsuspected interference.Do you want to read the rest of this article?Request full-text CitationsCitations44ReferencesReferences60Serum sample containing endogenous antibodies interf
42 in Clinical Chemistry (3rd ed), eds WJ Marshall, M Lapsley, A Day and R Ayling. 2013: Churchill Livingstone. Hanon EA, Sturgeon C, Lamb EJ. Sampling and storage conditions influencing the measurement of parathyroid hormone in blood samples: a systematic review. Clin Chem Clin Lab Med 2013; http://edqas.org/publications/ 51: 1925-41 Duffy MJ, Lamerz R, Haglund C, Nicolini A, Kalousová M, Holubec L, Sturgeon C. Tumor markers in colorectal cancer, gastric cancer and gastrointestinal stromal cancers: European group on tumor markers (EGTM) 2013 guidelines update. Int J Cancer 2014; 134: 2513-22 Sturgeon CM, Viljoen A. Analytical error and interference in immunoassay: minimizing risk. Ann Clin Biochem 2011; 48: 418-32 Sturgeon CM, Duffy MJ, Walker G. The National Institute for Health and Clinical analytical error Excellence (NICE) guidelines for early detection of ovarian cancer: the pivotal role of the clinical laboratory. Ann Clin Biochem 2011; 48: 295-9 Duffy MJ, van Rossum LG, van Turenhout ST, Malminiemi O, Sturgeon C, Lamerz R, et al. Use of faecal markers in screening for colorectal neoplasia: a European group on tumor markers position paper. Int J Cancer 2011; 128: 3-11 Sturgeon CM, Duffy MJ, Hofmann BR, Lamerz R, Fritsche HA, Gaarenstroom K, et analytical error and al. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for use of tumor markers in liver, bladder, cervical, and gastric cancers. Clin Chem 2010: 56: e1-48 Duffy MJ, Sturgeon C, Lamerz R, Haglund C, Holubec VL, Klapdor R. Tumor markers in pancreatic cancer: a European Group on Tumor Markers (EGTM) status report. Ann Oncol. 2010; 21: 441-7 Sturgeon CM, Lai LC, Duffy MJ. Serum tumour markers: how to order and interpret them. BMJ 2009 Sept 22; 339:b3527 Sturgeon CM, Duffy MJ, Stenman UH, Lilja H, Brunner N, Chan DW et al. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for Use of Tumor Markers in Clinical Practice: Testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast and ovarian cancer. Clin Chem 2008; 54: e11-79 Sturgeon CM, Hoffman BR, Chan DW, Ch'ng SL, Hammond E, Hayes DF, et al. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for Use of Tumor Markers in Clinical Practice: Quality requirements. Clin Chem 2008; 54: e1-10 Standardisation Berger P, Sturgeon C. Pregnancy testing with hCG - future prospects. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2014 25: 637-648 Sturgeon CM. Common decision limits – The need for harmonised immunoassays. Clin Chim Acta 2014 432: 122-6 Wieringa GE, Sturgeon CM, Trainer PJ. The harmonisation of growth hormone measurements: Taking the next steps. Clin Chim Acta 2014 432: 68-71 Berger P, Pau
be down. Please try the request again. Your cache administrator is webmaster. Generated Fri, 30 Sep 2016 04:52:57 GMT by s_hv997 (squid/3.5.20)