Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChoy, Kay Weng-
dc.contributor.authorSezgin, Gorkem-
dc.contributor.authorWijeratne, Nilika-
dc.contributor.authorCalleja, John-
dc.contributor.authorLiwayan, Rachelle-
dc.contributor.authorRathnayake, Geetha-
dc.contributor.authorMcFarlane, Robert-
dc.contributor.authorMcNeil, Alan-
dc.contributor.authorDoery, James C G-
dc.contributor.authorLu, Zhong-
dc.contributor.authorMarkus, Corey-
dc.contributor.authorLoh, Tze Ping-
dc.identifier.citationCopyright © 2021 Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.-
dc.identifier.citationPathology. 2021 Sep 15:S0031-3025(21)00434-7. doi: 10.1016/j.pathol.2021.06.123.-
dc.description.abstractSerum ferritin is currently the recommended laboratory test to investigate iron deficiency. There have been efforts to standardise serum ferritin assays with implementation of traceability to the World Health Organization reference standard. We evaluate the analytical bias among five widely used commercial ferritin assays in Australia. The relationship between serum ferritin and erythrocyte parameters was recently explored to derive functional reference limits. Residual patient serum specimens were analysed by five participating laboratories that utilised a different ferritin assay, Abbott, Beckman Coulter, Roche, Siemens, and Ortho. Using data mining approach, functional reference limits for Siemens, Abbott, and Ortho serum ferritin methods were derived and compared. At clinically relevant ferritin decision points, compared to the Beckman method, the Roche assay showed higher results ranging from 6 μg/L (31%) at the lowest decision point to 575 μg/L (57%) at the highest decision point. In contrast, the Ortho method underestimated ferritin results at lower decision points of 20 and 30 μg/L, with estimated ferritin results of 16 μg/L (-19%) and 27 μg/L (-12%), respectively. The Abbott and Siemens assays showed a positive bias which was introduced at differing decision points. The comparison of the Siemens and Ortho methods presents similar inflection points between the two assays in the establishment of functional reference limits for serum ferritin. There remain significant biases among some of the commonly used commercial ferritin assays in Australia. More studies are needed to assess if functional reference limits are a way to overcome method commutability issues.-
dc.titleAssessment of analytical bias in ferritin assays and impact on functional reference limits.-
dc.typeJournal Article-
dc.description.affiliationNorthern Pathology Victoria, Northern Health, Epping, Vic, Australia. Electronic address:
dc.description.affiliationFaculty of Medicine, Health, and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.-
dc.description.affiliationDorevitch Pathology, Heidelberg, Vic, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Vic, Australia.-
dc.description.affiliationMelbourne Pathology, Collingwood, Vic, Australia.-
dc.description.affiliationNorthern Pathology Victoria, Northern Health, Epping, Vic, Australia.-
dc.description.affiliationTerritory Pathology, Royal Darwin Hospital, Darwin, NT, Australia; University and Northern Territory Medical Program, Royal Darwin Hospital Campus, Darwin, NT, Australia.-
dc.description.affiliationTerritory Pathology, Royal Darwin Hospital, Darwin, NT, Australia.-
dc.description.affiliationDorevitch Pathology, Heidelberg, Vic, Australia.-
dc.description.affiliationMonash Pathology, Monash Health, Clayton, Vic, Australia.-
dc.description.affiliationFlinders University College of Medicine and Public Health, Adelaide, SA, Australia.-
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore.-
local.issue.number1465-3931 (Electronic)-
local.issue.number0031-3025 (Linking)-
Appears in Collections:(a) NT Health Research Collection

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in ePublications are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing


PubMed References

Who's citing