BACKGROUND: The serum insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) level is accepted to diagnose the growth hormone (GH) status. Here, we evaluated the DRG IGF-I 600 ELISA, DSL IGF-I ELISA, IDS OCTEIA IGF-I, Mediagnost IGF-I-ELISA, and the Siemens Immulite 2500 IGF-I in comparison to the former Nichols Advantage IGF-I assay. METHODS: Imprecision was determined by use of a serum pool and commercial control materials. Accuracy was evaluated by means of a method comparison to Nichols in 173 serum samples of GH deficient patients. RESULTS: The Siemens and the IDS IGF-I assays showed the lowest imprecision with coefficients of variation up to 3.6% and 6.9%, respectively. Both correlated best to Nichols (Siemens: y=0.667X+8.8 microg/L, r=0.950; IDS: y=0.527 X+4.6 microg/L, r=0.927) with the lowest dispersion of residuals from a linear equation. The DSL assay had the highest comparability to Nichols (y=1.000 X+35.5 microg/L, r=0.864), but with a considerable scattering. CONCLUSIONS: To yield IGF-I determination comparable to the former Nichols IGF-I, either the Siemens or the IDS assay should be applied, and the results should be converted by a linear method transformation. Where a conversion factor is not desired, the DSL assay should be selected.
BACKGROUND: The serum insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) level is accepted to diagnose the growth hormone (GH) status. Here, we evaluated the DRG IGF-I 600 ELISA, DSL IGF-I ELISA, IDS OCTEIA IGF-I, Mediagnost IGF-I-ELISA, and the Siemens Immulite 2500 IGF-I in comparison to the former Nichols Advantage IGF-I assay. METHODS: Imprecision was determined by use of a serum pool and commercial control materials. Accuracy was evaluated by means of a method comparison to Nichols in 173 serum samples of GH deficientpatients. RESULTS: The Siemens and the IDSIGF-I assays showed the lowest imprecision with coefficients of variation up to 3.6% and 6.9%, respectively. Both correlated best to Nichols (Siemens: y=0.667X+8.8 microg/L, r=0.950; IDS: y=0.527 X+4.6 microg/L, r=0.927) with the lowest dispersion of residuals from a linear equation. The DSL assay had the highest comparability to Nichols (y=1.000 X+35.5 microg/L, r=0.864), but with a considerable scattering. CONCLUSIONS: To yield IGF-I determination comparable to the former Nichols IGF-I, either the Siemens or the IDS assay should be applied, and the results should be converted by a linear method transformation. Where a conversion factor is not desired, the DSL assay should be selected.
Authors: Mari Palta; Tamara J LeCaire; Mona Sadek-Badawi; Victor M Herrera; Kirstie K Danielson Journal: Diabetes Metab Res Rev Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 4.876
Authors: Vivien Bonert; John Carmichael; Zengru Wu; James Mirocha; Daniel A Perez; Nigel J Clarke; Richard E Reitz; Michael J McPhaul; Adam Mamelak Journal: Pituitary Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 4.107
Authors: Paul E Oran; Olgica Trenchevska; Dobrin Nedelkov; Chad R Borges; Matthew R Schaab; Douglas S Rehder; Jason W Jarvis; Nisha D Sherma; Luhui Shen; Bryan Krastins; Dawn C Schwenke; Peter D Reaven; Randall W Nelson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Eric E Niederkofler; David A Phillips; Bryan Krastins; Vathany Kulasingam; Urban A Kiernan; Kemmons A Tubbs; Scott M Peterman; Amol Prakash; Eleftherios P Diamandis; Mary F Lopez; Dobrin Nedelkov Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 3.240