ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2018
Clinical Utility and Cross-Reactivity of Insulin and C-Peptide Assays by the Lumipulse G1200 System.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reference Standards for C-Peptide in Korean Population: A Korean Endocrine Hormone Reference Standard Data Center Study.Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea) · 2024Article
- Future clinical prospects of C-peptide testing in the early diagnosis of gestational diabetes.World journal of experimental medicine · 2024Review
- Marked Increase in Urinary C-peptide Levels after Treatment with Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2023Article
- Precision medicine in type 1 diabetes.Diabetologia · 2022Review
- Editorial: Heterogeneity of clinical phenotypes in type 1 diabetes and of beta cell deterioration in type 1 diabetes.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
- Comparison of four matrixes for diluting insulin in routine clinical measurements.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeasurement of insulin and C-peptide concentrations is important for deciding whether insulin treatment is required in diabetic patients. We aimed to investigate the analytical performance of insulin and C-peptide assays using the Lumipulse G1200 system (Fujirebio Inc., Tokyo, Japan).
methodsWe examined the precision, linearity, and cross-reactivity of insulin and C-peptide using five insulin analogues and purified proinsulin. A method comparison was conducted between the Lumipulse G1200 and Roche E170 (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) systems in 200 diabetic patients on insulin treatment. Reference intervals for insulin and C-peptide concentrations were determined in 279 healthy individuals.
resultsFor insulin and C-peptide assays, within-laboratory precision (% CV) was 3.78-4.14 and 2.89-3.35%, respectively. The linearity of the insulin assay in the range of 0-2,778 pmol/L was R²=0.9997, and that of the C-peptide assay in the range of 0-10 nmol/L was R²=0.9996. The correlation coefficient (r) between the Roche E170 and Lumipulse G1200 results was 0.943 (P<0.001) for insulin and 0.996 (P<0.001) for C-peptide. The mean differences in insulin and C-peptide between Lumipulse G1200 and the Roche E170 were 19.4 pmol/L and 0.2 nmol/L, respectively. None of the insulin analogues or proinsulin showed significant cross-reactivity with the Lumipulse G1200. Reference intervals of insulin and C-peptide were 7.64-70.14 pmol/L and 0.17-0.85 nmol/L, respectively.
conclusionsInsulin and C-peptide tests on the Lumipulse G1200 show adequate analytical performance and are expected to be acceptable for use in clinical areas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.