BACKGROUND: Accurate and reliable evaluation of the presence or absence of allergen-specific IgE is important in the differential diagnosis of allergic disease. A variety of different commercial tests are available for this purpose. There are few data available to judge how the results of these different tests compare with one another in everyday use. OBJECTIVE: To examine prospectively the extent of comparability among specific IgE results from different laboratories. METHODS: Six diagnostic laboratories employing five different methods to assay specific IgE were selected. Aliquots from 26 serum samples that contained variable levels of IgE specific to 17 common aeroallergens were sent in triplicate to each study laboratory during a 6-week time period. Results were reported numerically and by class scores and then compared by examining their concordance using Kendall's W nonparametric statistical test. In addition, cut-off values were compared by a best agreement analysis using reported results. Reproducibility was determined using precision profiles based upon the coefficient of variation among triplicates for each allergen across the range of reported results. RESULTS: In all, 7,813 tests were analyzed. Concordance among different assays in commercial use with one exception was not good. This was particularly true around the cut-off region where most assays demonstrated high imprecision. The Pharmacia CAP System used by two different laboratories demonstrated highly comparable results with good precision. Some assays were reproducible but not accurate. Others were neither reproducible nor accurate. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that not all commercial laboratories/assays for specific IgE provide reproducible and accurate data. Significant potential for misdiagnosis was detected for some reported results. Methods were identified that do give sensitive, accurate, and reproducible results.
BACKGROUND: Accurate and reliable evaluation of the presence or absence of allergen-specific IgE is important in the differential diagnosis of allergic disease. A variety of different commercial tests are available for this purpose. There are few data available to judge how the results of these different tests compare with one another in everyday use. OBJECTIVE: To examine prospectively the extent of comparability among specific IgE results from different laboratories. METHODS: Six diagnostic laboratories employing five different methods to assay specific IgE were selected. Aliquots from 26 serum samples that contained variable levels of IgE specific to 17 common aeroallergens were sent in triplicate to each study laboratory during a 6-week time period. Results were reported numerically and by class scores and then compared by examining their concordance using Kendall's W nonparametric statistical test. In addition, cut-off values were compared by a best agreement analysis using reported results. Reproducibility was determined using precision profiles based upon the coefficient of variation among triplicates for each allergen across the range of reported results. RESULTS: In all, 7,813 tests were analyzed. Concordance among different assays in commercial use with one exception was not good. This was particularly true around the cut-off region where most assays demonstrated high imprecision. The Pharmacia CAP System used by two different laboratories demonstrated highly comparable results with good precision. Some assays were reproducible but not accurate. Others were neither reproducible nor accurate. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that not all commercial laboratories/assays for specific IgE provide reproducible and accurate data. Significant potential for misdiagnosis was detected for some reported results. Methods were identified that do give sensitive, accurate, and reproducible results.
Authors: Federico C F Calboli; David G Cox; Julie E Buring; J Michael Gaziano; Jing Ma; Meir Stampfer; Walter C Willett; Shelley S Tworoger; David J Hunter; Carlos A Camargo; Dominique S Michaud Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Mi Zhou; Joseph L Wiemels; Paige M Bracci; Margaret R Wrensch; Lucie S McCoy; Terri Rice; Jennette D Sison; Joseph S Patoka; John K Wiencke Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2010-08-18 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Kacper Packi; Joanna Matysiak; Sylwia Klimczak; Eliza Matuszewska; Anna Bręborowicz; Dagmara Pietkiewicz; Jan Matysiak Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Joseph L Wiemels; David Wilson; Chirag Patil; Joseph Patoka; Lucie McCoy; Terri Rice; Judith Schwartzbaum; Amy Heimberger; John H Sampson; Susan Chang; Michael Prados; John K Wiencke; Margaret Wrensch Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2009-08-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Mi Zhou; Paige M Bracci; Lucie S McCoy; George Hsuang; Joseph L Wiemels; Terri Rice; Shichun Zheng; Karl T Kelsey; Margaret R Wrensch; John K Wiencke Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 7.316
Authors: Kyung Hee Park; Jongsun Lee; Sang Chul Lee; Young Woong Son; Da Woon Sim; Jae Hyun Lee; Jung Won Park Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.759