| Literature DB >> 28045077 |
Michael Haap1, Heinz Jürgen Roth2, Thomas Huber2, Helmut Dittmann3, Richard Wahl1.
Abstract
The aim of our study was to develop and validate an inexpensive, rapid, easy to use quantitative method to determine urinary iodine without major procurement costs for equipment. The rationale behind introducing this method is the increasing demand for urinary iodine assessments. Our study included 103 patients (76 female, 27 male), age (arithmetic mean) 52 ± 17.3 years. Urinary iodine was determined in microplates by a modification of the Sandell-Kolthoff reaction. The results were compared with inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) for iodine, considered as reference method. Geometric mean of urinary iodine determined by the Sandell-Kolthoff reaction method was 62.69 μg/l (95% confidence interval 53.16-73.92) whereas by the ICP-MS method it was 65.53 μg/l (95% confidence interval 54.77-78.41). Passing-Bablok regression equations for both methods gave y = 3.374 + 0.873x (y: Sandell-Kolthoff method, x: ICP-MS). Spearman´s correlation coefficient was 0.981, indicating a very high degree of agreement between the two methods. Bland-Altman plots showed no significant systematic difference between the two methods. The modified Sandell-Kolthoff method using microtiter plate technique presented here is a simple, inexpensive semi-automated method to determine urinary iodine with very little toxic waste. Comparison with the ICP-MS-technique yielded a good agreement between the two methods.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28045077 PMCID: PMC5206638 DOI: 10.1038/srep39835
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Box-and-whisker plots of the urinary iodine concentrations measured by the ICP-MS method and by the internal method.
Sample size n = 103 each. Each box in the figure represents the interquartile range (25th and 75th percentiles); the line inside each box is the median value. The whiskers represent the range of data up to a limit of 1.5-fold above or below the interquartile range; individual points are displayed for data exceeding the 1.5-fold limit. The two outside values (outliers) are displayed as separate circles. Box-and-whisker key numbers:
Figure 2Comparison of the ICP-MS method versus the Sandell-Kolthoff method by Passing-Bablok regression.
Two sampels (>300 μg/L) out of n = 103 each are way out of the others in terms of their UI and are not shown in this diagram. Excluding these very high values did not alter the results significantly. The scatter diagram shows the regression line (solid line), the 95% confidence interval for the regression line (dashed lines) and identity line (x = y, dotted line). The regression equation for n = 101 each is y = 3.374 + 0.873x. (The regression equation for n = 103 each, not shown here, is y = 3.373 + 0.873x). Variable y: ‘internal iodine’, variable x: ‘ICP-MS iodine’.
Constant differences were evaluated by calculating the intercept of the regression within the 95% CI (intercept: 3.373, CI: 1.964–4.722). The slope is 0.873, the 95% CI 0.844–0.905. Spearman’s coefficient of rank correlation = 0.981. Significance level P < 0.0001. In summary, no bias between the two methods and no significant deviation from linearity could be detected.
Figure 3Bland-Altman plot to compare our two measurement techniques for iodine determination.
Sample size shown is n = 101 each. Two samples (outliers) out of n = 103 with very high UI values (>300 μg/l) are excluded in this plot, but this revision of the number of patients did not affect the overall results as compared to the plot with n = 103 (not shown). Differences between the Sandell-Kolthoff method [μg/l] and ICP-MS [μg/l], expressed as percentages of the geometric means of the paired values on the y-axis vs. the geometric mean [μg/l] of the two measurements on the x-axis are plotted. (y-axis: [geometric mean Sandell-Kolthoff method (μg/l) – geometric mean ICP-MS method (μg/l)/geometric mean (μg/l)] × 100 [%]).Horizontal lines show the mean difference and the 95% CI of limits of agreement (confidence limits of the bias), which are defined as the mean difference plus/minus 1.96 times the standard deviation of the differences. The mean differences are near the 0-line. Bias: −4.3%. In summary, no significant systematic difference between the two methods can be discerned.