Editor-in-chief
Maria Stella Graziani

Deputy Director
Martina Zaninotto

Associate Editors
Ferruccio Ceriotti
Davide Giavarina
Bruna Lo Sasso
Giampaolo Merlini
Martina Montagnana
Andrea Mosca
Paola Pezzati
Rossella Tomaiuolo
Matteo Vidali

International Advisory Board Khosrow Adeli Canada
Sergio Bernardini Italy
Marcello Ciaccio Italy
Eleftherios Diamandis Canada
Philippe Gillery France
Kjell Grankvist Sweden
Hans Jacobs The Netherlands
Eric Kilpatrick UK
Magdalena Krintus Poland
Giuseppe Lippi Italy
☩Howard Morris Australia
Mario Plebani Italy
Sverre Sandberg Norway
Ana-Maria Simundic Croatia
☩Jill Tate Australia
Tommaso Trenti Italy
Cas Weykamp The Netherlands
Maria Willrich USA
Paul Yip Canada


Publisher
Biomedia srl
Via L. Temolo 4, 20126 Milano

Responsible Editor
Giuseppe Agosta

Editorial Secretary
Arianna Lucini Paioni
Biomedia srl
Via L. Temolo 4, 20126 Milano
Tel. 0245498282
email: biochimica.clinica@sibioc.it



Area soci
Non possiedi o non ricordi la password!
Clicca qui

BC: Articoli scritti da B. Boned

Importanza dell’utilizzo di Biological Variation Data Critical Appraisal Checklist nel disegno sperimentale di studi di variabilità biologica. Valutazione a confronto di due pubblicazioni sulla variabilità biologica della proteina S100βe dell’enolasi neu
The importance of the Biological Variation Data Critical Appraisal Checklist when designing experimental studies on biological variation. Comparison of two papers reporting biological variation results for S100-β and neuron-specific enolase proteins
<p>The Biological Variation Data Critical Appraisal Checklist (BIVAC) has been designed to evaluate biological variation (BV) studies and the reliability of the associated BV estimates. To illustrate its utility, two studies delivering within-subject BV (CVI) data for S100-&beta; protein and neuron-specific enolase (NSE), markers typically used for melanoma and neuroendocrine tumors, respectively, were appraised using BIVAC. Data from the European Biological Variation Study (EuBIVAS) and the recently published Johnson et al. study (ref n 11) were scored using the 14 BIVAC quality items (QI), with alternatives A, B, C and/or D to verify whether the elements required to obtain reliable BV data, were present and appropriately documented. Grade A indicates compliance with all the QIs and D indicates non compliance. The sizes of the confidence interval (CI) around the CVI estimates were also compared. Johnson&rsquo;s study received a BIVAC grade C, EuBIVAS a grade A. EuBIVAS is a large scale study, with&nbsp;1609 and 1728 results for NSE and S100-&beta;, respectively. In Johnson&rsquo;s study, only 40 results were available. The EuBIVAS CVI estimates [NSE, 10.9% (10.3-11.5); S100-&beta; , 10.2% (9.6-10.7)] were clearly lower than Johnson&rsquo;s CVIs [NSE, 22.1% (9.9-34.3); S100-&beta;, 18.9% (8.5-29.4)]. The overlapping CI between the two estimates are caused by Johnson&rsquo;s CI being about 20 times larger than the corresponding EuBIVAS CI. It is likely that studies that do not comply with all BIVAC QI deliver less reliable, and possibly too high, CVI estimates. Adherence to the BIVAC ensures safe clinical application of BV estimates.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
Biochimica Clinica ; 43(1) 059-066
Contributi Scientifici - Scientific Paper