Complete evaluation of NGAL-test on bc 5822

In relation to the former post, stating that an evaluation of the The NGAL Test on BC 5822, had been carried out, the full text of the complete evaluation is now avaliable. Its showtime Folks, its:  The NGAL Test versus the Rest: In short – the conclusion is – that the NGAL Test is immensely superior to ALL other tests available….

Evaluation of NGAL Test ™, a fully-automated neutrophil
gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) immunoassay
on Beckman Coulter AU 5822

The comparison wipes all other assays aside and declares The NGAL Test as the best assay currently available in the area of NGAL testing. What is truly noteworthy is that the authors declare complete independency (other than receiving (presumably free of charge) NGAL Test , calibrators and reagents from BioPorto)

“The within- and between-run imprecision of the NGAL is shown in Table 1 . The within-run imprecision was comprised between 1.0 % and 2.3 % , whereas the between-run imprecision was comprised between 1.2 % and 2.0 % , thereby showing comparable or even better performance than the Abbott ARCHITECT NGAL (CVs comprised between 2.1 % and 5.3 % in one study, and between 1.7 % and 5.7 % in another) (11, 12) , but a much better performance than the Biosite Triage (CVs comprised between 5 % and 16 % ) (11) .”

and:

“According to the results of this evaluation, the NGAL Test ™ immunoassay carries several technical and analytical advantages, including no need of manual pretreatment steps, a low volume of sample required (i.e., 3 µ L vs. 150 µ L with Abbott ARCHITECT), a very fast turnaround time (the assay is completed within 10 min vs. 35 min on Abbott ARCHITECT, and over 2 h with manual ELISAs), a high throughput enabled by its application to the vast majority most of automated clinical chemistry analyzers from manufacturers such as Roche, Abbott, Siemens and Beckman Coulter, a very low imprecision especially when compared with previously commercialized NGAL methods, a wide dynamic range and an optimal linearity in the range comprising the most clinically signifi cant diagnostic values (i.e., between 18 ng/mL and 790 ng/mL).”

Its cheaper, faster, more precise, more versatile, and avaliable on almost all the major brands… and it tests in all bodily fluids. What’s not to like?