We have located links that may give you full text access.
Classification of Patients With GH Disorders May Vary According to the IGF-I Assay.
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2017 August 2
Context: Insulinlike growth factor I (IGF-I) measurement is essential for the diagnosis and management of growth hormone (GH) disorders. However, patient classification may vary substantially according to the assay technique.
Objective: We compared individual patient data and classifications obtained with six different IGF-I assay kits in a group of patients with various GH disorders.
Design: In this cross-sectional study, we measured IGF-I with six immunoassays in 102 patients with active or treated acromegaly or GH deficiency. IGF-I normative data previously established for the same six assay kits were used to classify the patients (high, low, or normal IGF-I levels), using both raw data and standard deviation scores (SDSs). Pairwise concordance between assays was assessed with Bland-Altman plots and with the percentage of observed agreement and the weighted κ coefficient for categorized IGF-I SDS.
Results: We observed marked variability both across each individual's IGF-I raw data and across IGF-I SDS values obtained with each of the six immunoassays. Pairwise concordance between assay values, as assessed with the weighted κ coefficient, ranged from 0.50 (moderate) to 0.81 (excellent).
Conclusion: Even when using normative data obtained in the same large population of healthy subjects and when using calculated IGF-I SDSs, agreement among IGF-I assay methods is only moderate to good. Differences in assay performance must be taken into account when evaluating and monitoring patients with GH disorders. This argues for the use of the same IGF-I assay for a given patient throughout follow-up.
Objective: We compared individual patient data and classifications obtained with six different IGF-I assay kits in a group of patients with various GH disorders.
Design: In this cross-sectional study, we measured IGF-I with six immunoassays in 102 patients with active or treated acromegaly or GH deficiency. IGF-I normative data previously established for the same six assay kits were used to classify the patients (high, low, or normal IGF-I levels), using both raw data and standard deviation scores (SDSs). Pairwise concordance between assays was assessed with Bland-Altman plots and with the percentage of observed agreement and the weighted κ coefficient for categorized IGF-I SDS.
Results: We observed marked variability both across each individual's IGF-I raw data and across IGF-I SDS values obtained with each of the six immunoassays. Pairwise concordance between assay values, as assessed with the weighted κ coefficient, ranged from 0.50 (moderate) to 0.81 (excellent).
Conclusion: Even when using normative data obtained in the same large population of healthy subjects and when using calculated IGF-I SDSs, agreement among IGF-I assay methods is only moderate to good. Differences in assay performance must be taken into account when evaluating and monitoring patients with GH disorders. This argues for the use of the same IGF-I assay for a given patient throughout follow-up.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app