4.1 Article

Sensitive RIA measures testosterone concentrations in prepubertal and pubertal children comparable to tandem mass spectrometry

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/00365513.2014.942694

关键词

Mass spectrometry; androgens; immunoassays; pediatric; reference values

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [7509]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Immunoassays have been criticized for poor accuracy at low testosterone concentrations. Mass spectrometry (MS) has been proposed as the only reliable method for testosterone determination. The aim of this study was to compare a sensitive testosterone radioimmunoassay (RIA) with results from different MS. Methods. We compared testosterone concentrations determined by a sensitive testosterone RIA, lower limit of detection 0.03 nmol/L and limit of quantitation 0.1 nmol/L, with four tandem MS that were included in an international external quality assessment program for laboratory medicine. We also compared the morning concentrations of testosterone in girls and boys at different pubertal stages, using results from the RIA, with reported values determined by LC-MS/MS, developed for androgen determination in children. Results. The mean (SD), concentrations were similar between RIA and MS: 1.5 (0.3) and 1.4 (0.4) in the child/women range (0.8-2.6 nmol/L) and 16.0 (3.7) and 17.8 (4.5) nmol/L for the adult male range (10.1-30.0 nmol/L), respectively. The ratio between RIA and MS versus results from mean values of the four MS methods was 1.0 (0.18); 1.1 (0.18) for child/women concentrations and 0.9 (0.13) for male testosterone concentrations. Furthermore, compared to the pediatric reference values determined by LC-MS/MS, the sensitive testosterone RIA delivered similar testosterone values across the different pubertal stages. Conclusions. The comparison between different tandem MS methods and a sensitive testosterone RIA illustrates that there are immunoassays that deliver clinically useful information in prepubertal and pubertal children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据