Member area login
You don't have or don't remember the password!
Click Here
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

EIC Assistant
Francesco Busardò

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
Mario Plebani Italy
Sverre Sandberg Norway
Ana-Maria Simundic Croatia
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
Chiara Riva
Biomedia srl
Via L. Temolo 4, 20126 Milano
Tel. 0245498282
email: biochimica.clinica@sibioc.it

--------------------

ISSN print: 0393 – 0564
ISSN digital: 0392- 7091



BC: Articoli scritti da S. Tagliavini

Accuratezza dell’immunonefelometria come metodo di screening per la determinazione della proteinuria di Bence Jones
Accuracy of immunonephelometry as a screening method for Bence Jones proteinuria
<p>The Bence Jones protein (BJP) is an important biomarker for the identification and management of patients with plasma cell dyscrasia. The recommended method for BJP detection is the immunofixation, which is a time consuming and expensive procedure. The aim of the study was to evaluate immunonephelometry (INA) as a screening method for the identification of urine samples negative for BJP and to compare it to a simplified immunofixation method (uIFE-3). First morning urine samples were collected from 1000 consecutive patients and analyzed by INA. Samples with free light chain concentrations &gt;10 mg/L and &gt;5 mg/L were considered positive. All samples were further analyzed by uIFE-3 using 3 antisera (anti-GAM, -&kappa; and -&lambda;). The INA results (at both cut-off levels) were compared with the uIFE-3, showing a poor accuracy due to the high number of false positives and false negatives. Consequently, INA resulted unable to accurately screen BJP.</p>
Biochimica Clinica ; 41(2) 148-153
Contributi scientifici - Scientific papers