Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (8)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tummon, I.
Right arrow Articles by Martin, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tummon, I.
Right arrow Articles by Martin, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 14, No. 5, 1175-1177, May 1999
© 1999 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Precision and method bias of two assays for oestradiol: consequences for decisions in assisted reproduction

Ian Tummon1,3, Julia Stemp2, Clive Rose2, Hilde Vandenberghe2, Brent Bany1, Francis Tekpetey1 and James Martin1

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Western Ontario and 2 Gamma-Dynacare Medical Laboratories, London, Ontario, Canada

Oestradiol monitoring in assisted reproduction is empirical, with no proof of benefit. Precise oestradiol estimation will be an essential pre-requisite for high quality evaluation of possible differences between combined and ultrasound-only monitoring. Objectives of the present trial were independent method comparison and bias estimation of chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) versus radioimmunoassay for oestradiol. In a prospective comparison, 505 consecutive samples were split and assayed concurrently. Precision (reproducibility), relative bias and logistics were analysed and compared to manufacturers' findings. Correlation between CLIA and radioimmunoassay was excellent. Positive bias with CLIA necessitated altering decision points for therapy. Precision (reproducibility) was superior with CLIA, making it an appropriate candidate method for future randomized trials of the effectiveness of combined oestradiol/ultrasound monitoring for assisted reproduction.

Key words: bias/immunoassay/IVF/oestradiol/precision

3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at:339 Windermere Road, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5A5


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
A. S. Dighe and P. M. Sluss
Improved Detection of Serum Estradiol after Sample Extraction Procedure
Clin. Chem., April 1, 2004; 50(4): 764 - 766.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
J. Taieb, C. Benattar, R. Diop, A. S. Birr, and A. Lindenbaum
Use of the Architect-i2000 Estradiol Immunoassay during in Vitro Fertilization
Clin. Chem., January 1, 2003; 49(1): 183 - 186.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
E. H. Yu Ng, W. S. B. Yeung, E. Yee Lan Lau, W. W. K. So, and P. C. Ho
High serum oestradiol concentrations in fresh IVF cycles do not impair implantation and pregnancy rates in subsequent frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles
Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2000; 15(2): 250 - 255.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.