ABSTRACT
Point-of-care testing (POCT) offers several advantages over conventional laboratory testing. Nonetheless, a faster turnaround time, with less invasive procedures, is not enough if not associated with an acceptable level of accuracy. Here, we show the analytical validation behind the Hilab Flow (HiF), a multi-analyte POCT analyzer. HiF quantitative and qualitative tests for 6,175 clinical samples were compared to gold-standard methods from College of American Pathologists accredited laboratories. The compatibility between methods was evaluated in terms of association and clinical agreement. The established approval criteria was a kappa agreement > 0.8. A strong concordance was observed for the 27 analytes tested. Accuracy was greater than 90% for all HiF exams, indicating a good clinical agreement to gold standard laboratory testing. Results indicate that all quantitative and qualitative tests are suitable for POCT and present a reliable performance. HiF stands as a useful tool to aid decision-making in the clinical setting, with potential to contribute to healthcare solutions in diagnostic medicine worldwide.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Hilab Laboratory.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Internal data from the routine analysis of clinical laboratory service were used retrospectively for this in-house validation study. The study was approved by the Beneficencia Portuguesa Research Ethics Committee: CAEE 33490420.9.0000.5483.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Author affiliations updated. Statistical analyzes updated. The manuscript was rewritten for enhanced readability and consistency.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
