You might also read
Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.
Updated: Jul 7, 2025

Measurement of Factor V Activity in Human Plasma Using a Microplate Coagulation Assay
Published on: September 9, 2012
1Department of Clinical Laboratory, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medial Sciences,Beijing 100730, China.
This study evaluated a new domestic D-dimer reagent called ADX D-dimer to see if it performs as well as imported alternatives in clinical labs. Using 546 blood samples, researchers tested the reagent's accuracy, precision, and resistance to common interferences like bilirubin and hemoglobin. They found that the reagent met high standards for accuracy and precision and had a wide linear range. When compared to two imported reagents, the ADX D-dimer showed strong correlation and acceptable deviation rates. Even in samples with heterophilic antibodies, the reagent performed reliably. The study concluded that ADX D-dimer is a suitable domestic option for routine clinical testing.
Area of Science:
Background:
Current diagnostic standards rely on accurate D-dimer testing to assess thrombotic risk. While imported reagents dominate the market, domestic alternatives require rigorous validation to ensure equivalent performance. Prior research has shown that D-dimer assays must meet strict precision and accuracy thresholds to avoid misdiagnosis. However, no prior work had resolved whether domestic reagents can achieve comparable reliability. This gap motivated a detailed evaluation of a newly developed domestic D-dimer reagent. Establishing domestic alternatives could reduce costs and improve accessibility in clinical settings. Validation against established reagents is essential to confirm diagnostic equivalence. No prior work had resolved whether domestic reagents can achieve comparable reliability. This uncertainty drove the need for a comprehensive performance assessment.
Purpose Of The Study:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic and analytical performance of a domestic D-dimer reagent. The specific problem addressed was whether this reagent could match or exceed the performance of imported alternatives in clinical use. The motivation stemmed from the need to provide a validated domestic option for routine testing. The study focused on accuracy, precision, and interference resistance in a clinical setting. Validation against CLSI and national standards was necessary to ensure compliance. The reagent's performance was compared to two leading imported reagents. No prior work had resolved whether domestic reagents can achieve comparable reliability. This uncertainty drove the need for a comprehensive performance assessment.
Main Methods:
The study used 546 sodium citrate plasma samples from a single hospital. Sample selection followed CLSI and national health industry guidelines. The reagent was tested on a Sysmex CS 5100 coagulation analyzer. Performance metrics included accuracy, precision, and linear range. Interference resistance was tested with bilirubin, hemoglobin, and celiac. Reference intervals were validated against manufacturer specifications. Correlation with two imported reagents was assessed using statistical methods. Diagnostic efficacy was evaluated using ELISA results as a reference standard. No prior work had resolved whether domestic reagents can achieve comparable reliability.
Main Results:
The linear correlation coefficient reached 0.998, meeting CLSI standards. Accuracy bias ranged from -2.8% to 8.4%, within acceptable limits. Within-run and between-day precision CVs were below 5%, satisfying requirements. The linear range was confirmed from 0.33 to 9.69 mg/L FEU. No carryover was observed in testing. Bilirubin and hemoglobin interference remained minimal at tested concentrations. Correlation with reagent A and B was strong, with r values of 0.968 and 0.975. Deviation percentages were 3.4% and 4.5%, within acceptable ranges. For 172 samples with heterophilic antibodies, correlation remained good (r=0.827). Sensitivity and specificity reached 97.4% and 77.6%, with an AUC of 0.976.
Conclusions:
The authors state that the ADX D-dimer reagent meets clinical standards for accuracy and precision. The study confirms its suitability for routine use in clinical labs. The reagent's performance was comparable to imported alternatives in most metrics. No prior work had resolved whether domestic reagents can achieve comparable reliability. The authors propose that this reagent can serve as a reliable domestic alternative. Diagnostic efficacy was strong, with high sensitivity and AUC values. The reference interval was validated for use in this laboratory setting. The authors suggest that this reagent can meet clinical needs without compromising performance.
The reagent demonstrated high accuracy (r=0.998) and met CLSI standards for precision and linear range (0.33–9.69 mg/L FEU).
The reagent was compared to reagents A and B using correlation coefficients (r=0.968 and 0.975) and deviation percentages (3.4%–4.5%).
Bilirubin interference was tested to ensure the reagent's resistance to common clinical interferences at concentrations ≤0.22 g/L.
ELISA D-dimer served as a reference standard to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of the ADX reagent.
The sensitivity of ADX D-dimer was 97.4% based on 530 tested samples.
The authors propose that ADX D-dimer can meet clinical needs as a reliable domestic alternative to imported reagents.