↓ Skip to main content

Discordance with 3 Cardiac Troponin I and T Assays: Implications for the 99th Percentile Cutoff.

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Chemistry, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Discordance with 3 Cardiac Troponin I and T Assays: Implications for the 99th Percentile Cutoff.
Published in
Clinical Chemistry, August 2016
DOI 10.1373/clinchem.2016.255281
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacobus Petrus Johannes Ungerer, Jillian Russyll Tate, Carel Jacobus Pretorius

Abstract

We compared the 99th percentile reference intervals with 3 modern cardiac troponin assays in a single cohort and tested the hypothesis that the same individuals will be identified as above the cutoff and that differences will be explained by analytical imprecision. Blood was collected from 2005 apparently healthy blood donors. Cardiac troponin was measured with Abbott Architect STAT high sensitive troponin I, Beckman Coulter Access AccuTnI+3, and Roche Elecsys troponin T highly sensitive assays. The 99th percentile cutoff limits were as follows: Abbott cardiac troponin I (cTnI) 28.9 ng/L; Beckman Coulter cTnI 31.3 ng/L; and Roche cardiac troponin T (cTnT) 15.9 ng/L. Correlation among the assays was poor: Abbott cTnI vs Beckman Coulter cTnI, R(2) = 0.18; Abbott cTnI vs Roche cTnT, R(2) = 0.04; and Beckman Coulter cTnI vs Roche cTnT R(2) = 0.01. Of the results above the cutoff 50% to 70% were unique to individual assays, with only 4 out of 20 individuals above the cutoff for all 3 assays. The observed differences among assays were larger than predicted from analytical imprecision. The 99th percentile cutoff values were in agreement with those reported elsewhere. The poor correlation and concordance amongst the assays were notable. The differences found could not be explained by analytical imprecision and indicate the presence of inaccuracy (bias) that is unique to sample and assay combinations. Based on these findings we recommend less emphasis on the cutoff value and greater emphasis on δ values in the diagnosis of myocardial infarction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 14%
Researcher 4 14%
Lecturer 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Professor 3 10%
Other 10 34%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 62%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 05 July 2016.
All research outputs
#3,965,787
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Chemistry
#1,052
of 7,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,642
of 366,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Chemistry
#7
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,391 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
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 366,368 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.