RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Analytical Accuracy and Clinical Agreement of a Novel Internet of Things and AI-based Point-of-Care Testing Laboratory
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.10.29.21264864
DO 10.1101/2021.10.29.21264864
A1 Malucelli, Lucca Centa
A1 Neves Alves, Gabriele Luise
A1 Rank Filho, Claucio Antonio
A1 Correa, Rafaela Fortes
A1 Albano, Vanessa Hintz
A1 Rocha Saldanha, Anita Leme da
A1 Fakhouri, Tereza Bellincanta
A1 Santos, Carolina Melchioretto dos
A1 Severo, Matheus Gonçalves
A1 Ribeiro, Victor Henrique Alves
A1 de Almeida, Bernardo Montesanti Machado
A1 Klosovski, Caio Corsi
A1 Rocha Martinez, Tania Leme da
A1 Scartezini, Marileia
A1 Mazega Figueredo, Marcus Vinícius
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/10/06/2021.10.29.21264864.abstract
AB 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 StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by the Hilab Laboratory.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe 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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.