BACKGROUND: Serum cortisol measurements are used to help diagnose conditions of cortisol deficiency and excess. Automated, nonisotopic immunoassays are used in most clinical laboratories. METHODS: Linearity, imprecision, and method comparison studies for serum cortisol assays were performed with the Access, Advia Centaur, AxSYM, Elecsys 2010, and IMMULITE 2000 analyzers. RESULTS: All methods demonstrated acceptable linearity with the AxSYM method showing the least deviation from target values. The Elecsys 2010 method was the most precise for all three levels of quality control material. Method comparison studies demonstrated good concordance among methods except for two patient samples that gave results on the Elecsys 2010 that were significantly higher than the other methods. Differences in assay calibration were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, all methods performed well. Additional calibration standardization efforts are required to truly harmonize the results from each assay. The Elecsys 2010 method is less specific than other automated methods based on two discordant patient results.
BACKGROUND: Serum cortisol measurements are used to help diagnose conditions of cortisol deficiency and excess. Automated, nonisotopic immunoassays are used in most clinical laboratories. METHODS: Linearity, imprecision, and method comparison studies for serum cortisol assays were performed with the Access, Advia Centaur, AxSYM, Elecsys 2010, and IMMULITE 2000 analyzers. RESULTS: All methods demonstrated acceptable linearity with the AxSYM method showing the least deviation from target values. The Elecsys 2010 method was the most precise for all three levels of quality control material. Method comparison studies demonstrated good concordance among methods except for two patient samples that gave results on the Elecsys 2010 that were significantly higher than the other methods. Differences in assay calibration were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, all methods performed well. Additional calibration standardization efforts are required to truly harmonize the results from each assay. The Elecsys 2010 method is less specific than other automated methods based on two discordant patient results.
Authors: Antonio B Porcaro; Alberto Molinari; Alessandro Terrin; Nicolò De Luyk; Roberto Baldassarre; Matteo Brunelli; Stefano Cavalleri; Maria Angela Cerruto; Matteo Gelati; Gian Luca Salvagno; Gian Cesare Guidi; Walter Artibani Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2015-07-24
Authors: Francis Girard; Isabelle P Oswald; Ionélia Taranu; Pierre Hélie; Greg D Appleyard; Josée Harel; John M Fairbrother Journal: Infect Immun Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 3.441
Authors: Josef Briegel; Charles L Sprung; Djillali Annane; Mervyn Singer; Didier Keh; Rui Moreno; Patrick Möhnle; Yoram Weiss; Alexander Avidan; Frank M Brunkhorst; Fritz Fiedler; Michael Vogeser Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Antonio B Porcaro; Nicolò de Luyk; Paolo Corsi; Marco Sebben; Alessandro Tafuri; Davide Inverardi; Davide De Marchi; Irene Tamanini; Matteo Brunelli; Maria Angela Cerruto; Gian Luca Salvagno; Gian Cesare Guidi; Walter Artibani Journal: Asian J Urol Date: 2016-03-14