Abstract

BackgroundThe determination of Carbohydrate Deficient Transferrin (CDT) in a forensic context should be based on the use of a screening technique followed, for the “positive samples”, by a confirmatory technique. The aim of this study was to compare the two most used automated screening methods for CDT analysis, immuno-nephelometric assay (INA) and multi-capillary electrophoresis (mCE), with a validated HPLC procedure, used as confirmation test, in order to re-evaluate the cut-off concentrations of the screening methods. Methods195 serum samples underwent CDT analysis by using the N Latex CDT direct immuno-nephelometric assay, the multicapillary system Capillarys™ and an anion exchange HPLC method with UV-visible detection at 460nm developed and validated at our laboratories. Statistical analyses were performed by using Bland–Altman plots and ROC curves. Results and discussionThe 95% limits of agreement were ±0.94% when comparing INA and HPLC and ±0.60% when comparing mCE and HPLC. The ROC analysis of both INA and mCE, using HPLC as the reference method, showed that no false negative results were found when the cut-off was fixed to 1.2% for mCE and to 2.3% for INA. ConclusionsThe study showed a good agreement among CDT determinations carried out either with mCE or INA or HPLC. However, the usual cut-offs of both mCE (1.3%) and INA (2.5%) should be lowered to minimize false negatives at the screening analysis.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.