Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Screening for interference in immunoassays.

Jane F Emerson1, Gilda Ngo, Scott S Emerson

  • 1Department of Pathology, University of California Irvine Medical Center, 101 The City Drive S., Orange, CA 92868, USA. jemerson@uci.edu

Clinical Chemistry
|June 21, 2003
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Rejoinder to Commentaries on "A Perspective on the Appropriate Implementation of ICH E9(R1) Addendum Strategies for Handling Intercurrent Events".

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same author

Semaglutide, weight loss, and cardiovascular outcomes in the SELECT trial - Authors' reply.

Lancet (London, England)·2026
Same author

Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes According to Baseline Aspirin Use: Analyses of the SOUL and SELECT Trials.

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism·2026
Same author

Oral Semaglutide and Change in Cardiovascular Risk Factors in High-Risk Type 2 Diabetes: A Post Hoc Secondary Analysis of the SOUL Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA cardiology·2026
Same author

Oral Semaglutide and Heart Failure Outcomes in Persons With Type 2 Diabetes: A Secondary Analysis of the SOUL Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA internal medicine·2026
Same author

Impact of Oral Semaglutide on Kidney Outcomes in People With Type 2 Diabetes: Results From the SOUL Randomized Trial.

Diabetes care·2025
Same journal

Comparison of Information-Dependent Acquisition and Sequential Window Acquisition of All Theoretical Mass Spectra for Untargeted Drug Testing on a Linear Ion Trap-Pulsing Quadrupole-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometer.

Clinical chemistry·2026
Same journal

Patterns of One-Year Change in HbA1c and Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Metrics in Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes.

Clinical chemistry·2026
Same journal

TSH Pediatric Reference Intervals: Lack of CALIPER Applicability to US-Based Populations.

Clinical chemistry·2026
Same journal

Rapid Detection of Hemoglobinopathy Variants Using One-Step Library Preparation and Nanopore Sequencing.

Clinical chemistry·2026
Same journal

Editor's Note: Circulating Proteolytic Products of Carboxypeptidase N for Early Detection of Breast Cancer.

Clinical chemistry·2026
Same journal

In Reply to Reflexing NT-proBNP for sFlt-1/PlGF Ratios That Fall into the Measurement Uncertainty for Preeclampsia Risk Classification.

Clinical chemistry·2026
See all related articles

Routine screening for interfering substances in patient immunoassay samples is not recommended. These methods are not reliably effective, and testing should be reserved for cases with suspicious results or clinical history.

Area of Science:

  • Clinical Chemistry
  • Immunology
  • Biochemistry

Background:

  • Patient samples for immunoassay can contain unpredictable interfering substances.
  • Evaluating screening techniques is crucial for accurate diagnostic testing.
  • Prevalence of interference impacts immunoassay reliability.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate three interference screening techniques for immunoassays.
  • To estimate the prevalence of interfering substances in patient samples.
  • To determine the effectiveness of prescreening protocols.

Main Methods:

  • 160 patient samples were tested for interference in four immunoassays.
  • Interference was detected via serial dilution, heterophile blocking reagent (HBR), and a control reaction.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Statistical analyses included McNemar test and modified Pearson chi(2).

    • Main Results:

    • Only 3.1% of samples screened positive using the ICON method.
    • Serial dilution identified discrepancies in 48.6% of samples.
    • HBR pretreatment showed discrepancies in 38% of samples, varying significantly by immunoassay type.

    Conclusions:

    • Current screening techniques are not warranted for routine immunochemistry laboratory use.
    • Prescreening for interfering substances is not recommended.
    • Testing for anti-animal antibodies should be based on clinical suspicion or abnormal results.