Analytical evaluation of a direct ion-selective-based analyser: Still gaps to close.

Discrepancy Electrolytes ISE methodology

Journal

Clinical biochemistry
ISSN: 1873-2933
Titre abrégé: Clin Biochem
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0133660

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 Sep 2024
Historique:
received: 19 03 2024
revised: 23 09 2024
accepted: 27 09 2024
medline: 1 10 2024
pubmed: 1 10 2024
entrez: 30 9 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Discrepancies between electrolyte concentrations determined by blood gas analysers (BGA) and core-lab chemistry analysers may create confusion in clinical practice. This problem is rooted in the different ion-selective electrode (ISE) methodologies that are used. Whilst most available chemistry analysers use indirect ISE, we evaluated the analytical performance of the new automated chemistry analyser Biossays™ E6 (Snibe), equipped with direct ISE, for the determination of sodium (Na Total precision, estimated deviation and total error were evaluated for all analytes on the E6 analyser. Several patient cohorts were used to perform method comparisons between the E6 and the direct (RP500e BGA) and indirect (Architect c16000 analyser) ISE methods routinely used in the lab. Obtained data were compared against pre-set quality specifications and used for adjustment of the 2 direct ISE methods. For Na The analytical performance for the 4 tested electrolytes (Na The acceptable analytical performance and ease-of-use of the E6 direct ion selective instrument is making it feasible to optimize electrolyte determinations to direct methodology.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39349157
pii: S0009-9120(24)00123-1
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2024.110829
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

110829

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Matthijs Oyaert (M)

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. Electronic address: Matthijs.oyaert@uzgent.be.

Nick Verougstraete (N)

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.

Brecht Vandekerckhove (B)

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.

Bruno Lapauw (B)

Department of Endocrinology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Internal Medicine and Paediatrics, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.

Eric Hoste (E)

Department of Internal Medicine and Paediatrics, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium; Research Foundation-Flanders, Brussels, Belgium.

Veronique Stove (V)

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Diagnostic Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Classifications MeSH