2008
DOI: 10.1258/acb.2007.007185
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The determination of the 99th centile level for troponin assays in an Australian reference population

Abstract: Depending on the selected reference population for troponin, there is likely to be variability in the 99th centile as shown in this study. Some differences in sample concordance at the 99th centile cut-off were observed between cTn methods and may result in different clinical classification.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
38
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
2
38
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The most comprehensive 99th percentile study assessed a common set of results from presumably healthy individuals in 19 different cardiac tro-ponin assays (38 ). In this study as well as in a smaller study (25 ), differences in the determined 99th percentiles were observed for many assays when they were compared to the manufacturers' package insert 99th percentiles. Such findings would be expected with the assessment of nonuniformly defined normal groups of participants in the different studies.…”
Section: Defining Normalitymentioning
confidence: 95%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…The most comprehensive 99th percentile study assessed a common set of results from presumably healthy individuals in 19 different cardiac tro-ponin assays (38 ). In this study as well as in a smaller study (25 ), differences in the determined 99th percentiles were observed for many assays when they were compared to the manufacturers' package insert 99th percentiles. Such findings would be expected with the assessment of nonuniformly defined normal groups of participants in the different studies.…”
Section: Defining Normalitymentioning
confidence: 95%
“…However, the real-world pro-cess leading to the selection of "normal" subjects across different studies is highly variable, ranging from a failure to supply a detailed definition of how normal subjects were selected (10 -16 ), to primarily using health questionnaires or reviewing baseline clinical characteristics (17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24), to more selective screening methods using surrogate blood biomarkers, electrocardiography, imaging, and/or physical examination in addition to assessment of known baseline clinical variables (25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34). Several studies have relied exclusively on questionnaires to define reference individuals.…”
Section: Defining Normalitymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations