Cited by 80Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlAdrenal Hormones and DisordersReliability and Agreement in Measurement

Assessment of ACTH assay variability: a multicenter study

Pecori Giraldi, Francesca, Saccani, Andrea, Cavagnini, Francesco, _, _·2011·European Journal of Endocrinology

Abstract

Objective Measurement of plasma ACTH plays a pivotal role in the diagnosis and treatment of several endocrine disorders. Little is known, however, on the variability of ACTH assay results and its impact on clinical practice. The aim of the present study was to assess the performance of routine plasma ACTH measurements. Design Twenty-five fresh-frozen plasma samples collected from patients with either high, low, or normal ACTH concentrations were measured using seven different assays by 35 different laboratories. Assay precision, method agreement, and result classification were estimated. Results Inter- and intra-assay coefficient of variation varied considerably with some assays achieving 20%. Overall method agreement was good (mean ratio versus target value 1.02) but subject to exceedingly large excursion (lower and upper limits of agreement at 0.13 and 1.91 respectively). Both differences between assays and between laboratories contributed to variability of method agreement. Assays correctly classified most patients with normal and high ACTH concentrations (90% (95% CI 82-97%) and 95% (95% CI 86-100%) respectively), whereas only 60% (95% CI 52-67%) of measurements from patients with low ACTH values were assigned correctly. Conclusions Field ACTH assays have to be interpreted with caution as they are burdened by high variability and often fail to correctly identify patients with suppressed ACTH secretion. The endocrine community has to include ACTH assays among those requiri…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1530/eje-10-0962

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pecori Giraldi, F., Saccani, A., Cavagnini, F., & _, _.
Affiliations
University of Milan (IT)
Corresponding author
Cavagnini, Francesco
Venue
European Journal of Endocrinology
Published
2011-04
Volume
164
Issue
4
Pages
505-512
ISSN
  • 0804-4643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1479-683X
OpenAlex
W2131830610
Cited by
80
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Endocrinology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Adrenal Hormones and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
assay variability, interlaboratory agreement, assay precision, measurement agreement, ACTH suppression, assay standardization
MeSH terms
Adrenocorticotropic Hormone, Biological Assay, Humans, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review