Estudio comparativo entre diferentes métodos para la determinación de la calprotectina fecal

  1. Rocío Cabra Rodríguez 1
  2. Miguel Ángel Castaño López 2
  3. Ana María Serrano Mira 3
  4. Antonio León Justel 4
  5. Ignacio Vázquez Rico 5
  6. Juan María Vázquez Morón 3
  7. Francisco Navarro Roldán 6
  1. 1 UGC Centro de Salud El Cachorro. Distrito Sanitario Sevilla. Sevilla
  2. 2 UGC de Análisis Clínicos. Hospital Comarcal Infanta Elena. Huelva
  3. 3 UGC de Análisis Clínicos. Hospital Universitario Juan Ramón Jiménez. Huelva
  4. 4 UGC de Análisis Clínicos. Hospital Universitario de Virgen Macarena. Sevilla
  5. 5 UGC de Análisis Clínicos. Hospital Universitario Juan Ramón Jiménez
  6. 6 Departamento de Ciencias Integradas de Biología Celular. Facultad de Ciencias Experimentales. Universidad de Huelva. Huelva
Show affiliations +
Journal:
Revista de Medicina de Laboratorio

ISSN: 2660-7484,  2660-7638

Year of publication: 2021

Volume: 2

Issue: 1

Pages: 3-10

Type: Article

DOI: 10.20960/REVMEDLAB.00015 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista de Medicina de Laboratorio

Abstract

Introduction: calprotectin (CPF) is a reliable marker of mucosal inflammation. The objective of this study was to compare CPF analysis methods. Material and method: CPF was determined in 160 samples. The method of BÜHLMANN® ELISA was compared with another 4: Quantum Blue® (immunochromatography), IDK® ELISA, BÜHLMANN fCAL® turbo (turbidimetry) and LIAISON® CPF (chemiluminiscence). The statistical comparison was performed by Passing-Bablok study (PB) and Lin coefficient. Results: for the comparison study of BÜHLMANN® ELISA versus the Quantum Blue chromatographic method®, the Lin match correlation coefficient was 0.9870 (CI 95 %: 0.9822 to 0.9905) and PB indicates that there are no systematic or proportional differences. When comparing the two ELISA methods, BÜHLMANN® ELISA and IDK® ELISA, Lin coefficient was 0.7988 (95 % CI: 0.6419 to 0.8915) and PB shows that there are proportional but non- systematic differences. Lin’s coefficient resulting from the comparative study between the methods BÜHLMANN® ELISA and BÜHLMANN fCAL® turbo was 0.5696 (95: 0.4632 to 0.6599 IC), while with PB it tells us that there are systematic but not proportional differences. Finally, for BÜHLMANN® ELISA and LIAISON® CPF, a Lin coefficient of 0.9740 (95 % CI: 0.9637 to 0.9814) was obtained but PB indicates that it has systematic and proportional differences. Conclusions: the differences between the different methods only made possible to interchange BÜHLMANN® ELISA with Quantum Blue® cromatographic method. Therefore, more effort is required to achieve standardization of CPF tests.

Data source: Dialnet