These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evaluation of the QMS® Teicoplanin Immunoassay (ThermoFisher Scientific) on Cobas® 8000 System (Roche Diagnostics) and comparison to fluorescence polarization immunoassay for the determination of teicoplanin concentrations in human plasma.
    Author: Dailly E, Fraissinet F, Deslandes G, Bouquié R, Jolliet P.
    Journal: J Clin Lab Anal; 2013 Mar; 27(2):96-8. PubMed ID: 23378010.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The performances of the QMS(®) Teicoplanin immunoassay recently developed on Cobas(®) 6000/8000 systems were evaluated and compared to a fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA) [Teicoplanin Innofluor(®) Assay (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Indianapolis, IN)] on FLX analyzer (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL)]. METHODS: The validation was performed according to the Cofrac (French Accreditation Committee) document SH GTA 04. For the comparison, 48 plasma samples were analyzed by FPIA and QMS assays. RESULTS: The QMS assay is accurate (intra assay and inter assay inaccuracy ≤ 2.4%) and precise (intra assay and inter assay imprecision ≤ 10.2%). A linear relationship [QMS = 1.0319 × FPIA - 2.8518, r(2) = 0.9246 (P < 0.001)] between FPIA and QMS was found. In the Bland-Altman plots, no systematic bias was found even if QMS results trends to be lower (mean of the ratio QMS concentration/FPIA concentration = 0.91). CONCLUSION: These results between QMS and FPIA are consistent, which indicates that QMS(®) Teicoplanin immunoassay on Cobas(®) 8000 System is an alternative to FPIA.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]