↓ Skip to main content

Analytical performance of three whole blood point-of-care lactate devices compared to plasma lactate comparison methods and a flow-injection mass spectrometry method

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Biochemistry, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Analytical performance of three whole blood point-of-care lactate devices compared to plasma lactate comparison methods and a flow-injection mass spectrometry method
Published in
Clinical Biochemistry, November 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2016.11.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole V. Tolan, Amy M. Wockenfus, Christopher D. Koch, Bridgit O. Crews, Dennis J. Dietzen, Brad S. Karon

Abstract

Point of care (POC) whole blood lactate testing may facilitate rapid detection of sepsis. We evaluated three POC methods against both plasma lactate comparison methods and a flow-injection mass spectrometric (MS) method. Nova StatStrip, Abbott i-STAT CG4+ and Radiometer ABL90 POC lactate methods were evaluated against the mean of Cobas Integra 400 and Vitros 350 plasma lactate. POC methods were also compared to a flow-injection mass spectrometric assay measuring lactate in ZnSO4-precipitated whole blood extracts. Intra- and inter-assay precision was determined using quality control material. Method comparison included specimens from normal donors at rest, after exertion, and after spiking with lactic acid. Intra- and inter-assay coefficient of variation was <5% for i-STAT and ABL90; but ranged from 3.1-8.2% on two StatStrip meters. Mean (±SD) bias between POC and plasma lactate ranged from -0.2±0.9 (i-STAT and ABL90) to -0.4±1.2 (StatStrip) mmol/L. At concentrations >6mmol/L, all POC methods showed proportional negative bias compared to plasma methods; but this bias was not observed when compared to the MS method. Despite proportional negative bias, all POC methods demonstrated acceptable concordance (94-100%) with plasma lactate within the reference interval (<2.3mmol/L) and >4mmol/L, commonly used clinical cut-offs for detection of sepsis. POC lactate methods demonstrate acceptable concordance with plasma lactate across commonly used clinical cut-offs for detection of sepsis. Due to systematic negative bias at higher lactate concentrations, POC and plasma lactate should not be used interchangeably to monitor patients with elevated lactate concentrations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 29%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Student > Master 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 6 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Materials Science 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 6 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 November 2016.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Biochemistry
#1,595
of 2,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,089
of 319,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Biochemistry
#23
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,317 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,112 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.