BACKGROUND: Point-of-care (POC) C-reactive protein (CRP) testing is increasingly used in primary care to assist general practitioners (GPs) in the diagnostic workup for various complaints. The present study compares analytical performance, agreement and user-friendliness of five of these POC CRP tests. METHODS: The following five POC CRP tests were evaluated: Afinion and NycoCard Reader II (both Alere), Eurolyser Smart 700/340 (Eurolyser), QuikRead go and QuikRead 101 (both Orion Diagnostica). Results were compared with those of a standard immunoturbidimetric method performed on a routine analyzer (Olympus AU 2700, Beckman Coulter). Analytical performance and agreement with the laboratory standard for the five different POC tests were analyzed. Subsequently, user-friendliness of the POC tests was assessed. RESULTS: Within-day CVs varied from 2.6% (QuikRead go) to 19.4% (Eurolyser Smart 700/340) for low CRP values (< 20 mg/L), and 1.1% (QuikRead go) to 17.5% (Eurolyser Smart 700/340) for high values (> 100 mg/L). Between-day CVs varied from 4.6% (Afinion) to 30.5% (Eurolyser Smart 700/340) for low values and 4.0% (QuikRead go) to 18.0% (Eurolyser Smart 700/340) for high values. With high CRP values (> 100 mg/L) agreement with the laboratory standard systematically decreased for all POC tests. Regarding user-friendliness Afinion and Eurolyser Smart 700/340 were judged easiest to operate. CONCLUSIONS: Analytical performance, agreement, and user-friendliness of the POC CRP tests varied considerably, yet overall four devices showed adequate analytical performance and agreement.
BACKGROUND: Point-of-care (POC) C-reactive protein (CRP) testing is increasingly used in primary care to assist general practitioners (GPs) in the diagnostic workup for various complaints. The present study compares analytical performance, agreement and user-friendliness of five of these POC CRP tests. METHODS: The following five POC CRP tests were evaluated: Afinion and NycoCard Reader II (both Alere), Eurolyser Smart 700/340 (Eurolyser), QuikRead go and QuikRead 101 (both Orion Diagnostica). Results were compared with those of a standard immunoturbidimetric method performed on a routine analyzer (Olympus AU 2700, Beckman Coulter). Analytical performance and agreement with the laboratory standard for the five different POC tests were analyzed. Subsequently, user-friendliness of the POC tests was assessed. RESULTS: Within-day CVs varied from 2.6% (QuikRead go) to 19.4% (Eurolyser Smart 700/340) for low CRP values (< 20 mg/L), and 1.1% (QuikRead go) to 17.5% (Eurolyser Smart 700/340) for high values (> 100 mg/L). Between-day CVs varied from 4.6% (Afinion) to 30.5% (Eurolyser Smart 700/340) for low values and 4.0% (QuikRead go) to 18.0% (Eurolyser Smart 700/340) for high values. With high CRP values (> 100 mg/L) agreement with the laboratory standard systematically decreased for all POC tests. Regarding user-friendliness Afinion and Eurolyser Smart 700/340 were judged easiest to operate. CONCLUSIONS: Analytical performance, agreement, and user-friendliness of the POC CRP tests varied considerably, yet overall four devices showed adequate analytical performance and agreement.
Authors: Margaretha C Minnaard; Joris A H de Groot; Rogier M Hopstaken; Alwin Schierenberg; Niek J de Wit; Johannes B Reitsma; Berna D L Broekhuizen; Saskia F van Vugt; Arie Knuistingh Neven; Aleida W Graffelman; Hasse Melbye; Timothy H Rainer; Johann Steurer; Anette Holm; Ralph Gonzales; Geert-Jan Dinant; Alma C van de Pol; Theo J M Verheij Journal: CMAJ Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Leanne Chalmers; Petra Czarniak; Jeffery Hughes; Rebecca Iacob; Ya Ping Lee; Kiran Parsons; Richard Parsons; Bruce Sunderland; Tin Fei Sim Journal: Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm Date: 2022-06-02
Authors: Veerle Matheeussen; Viviane Van Hoof; Katherine Loens; Christine Lammens; Anouk Vanderstraeten; Samuel Coenen; Chris C Butler; Paul Little; Theo J M Verheij; Herman Goossens; Margareta Ieven Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Jan Y Verbakel; Marieke B Lemiengre; Tine De Burghgraeve; An De Sutter; Bert Aertgeerts; Bethany Shinkins; Rafael Perera; David Mant; Ann Van den Bruel; Frank Buntinx Journal: BMC Med Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Tjarda M Boere; Laura W van Buul; Rogier M Hopstaken; Ruth B Veenhuizen; Maurits W van Tulder; Jochen W L Cals; Theo J M Verheij; Cees M P M Hertogh Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Jan Yvan Jos Verbakel; Tine De Burghgraeve; Ann Van den Bruel; Samuel Coenen; Sibyl Anthierens; Louise Joly; Annouschka Laenen; Jeroen Luyten; An De Sutter Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Yoel Lubell; Stuart D Blacksell; Susanna Dunachie; Ampai Tanganuchitcharnchai; Thomas Althaus; Wanitda Watthanaworawit; Daniel H Paris; Mayfong Mayxay; Thomas J Peto; Arjen M Dondorp; Nicholas J White; Nicholas P J Day; François Nosten; Paul N Newton; Paul Turner Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 3.090