Limits...
Comparative Validation of Five Quantitative Rapid Test Kits for the Analysis of Salt Iodine Content: Laboratory Performance, User- and Field-Friendliness.

Rohner F, Kangambèga MO, Khan N, Kargougou R, Garnier D, Sanou I, Ouaro BD, Petry N, Wirth JP, Jooste P - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Results from the quantRTK were compared against iodometric titration for validity.Of the quantRTK tested, the iCheck® and I-Reader® showed most consistent performance and ease of use, and a newly developed paper-based method (saltPAD) holds promise if further developed.User- and field-friendly devices are now available and the most appropriate quantRTK can be selected depending on the number of samples and the budget available.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: GroundWork LLC, Crans-près-Céligny, Switzerland.

ABSTRACT

Background: Iodine deficiency has important health and development consequences and the introduction of iodized salt as national programs has been a great public health success in the past decades. To render national salt iodization programs sustainable and ensure adequate iodization levels, simple methods to quantitatively assess whether salt is adequately iodized are required. Several methods claim to be simple and reliable, and are available on the market or are in development.

Objective: This work has validated the currently available quantitative rapid test kits (quantRTK) in a comparative manner for both their laboratory performance and ease of use in field settings.

Methods: Laboratory performance parameters (linearity, detection and quantification limit, intra- and inter-assay imprecision) were conducted on 5 quantRTK. We assessed inter-operator imprecision using salt of different quality along with the comparison of 59 salt samples from across the globe; measurements were made both in a laboratory and a field setting by technicians and non-technicians. Results from the quantRTK were compared against iodometric titration for validity. An 'ease-of-use' rating system was developed to identify the most suitable quantRTK for a given task.

Results: Most of the devices showed acceptable laboratory performance, but for some of the devices, use by non-technicians revealed poorer performance when working in a routine manner. Of the quantRTK tested, the iCheck® and I-Reader® showed most consistent performance and ease of use, and a newly developed paper-based method (saltPAD) holds promise if further developed.

Conclusions: User- and field-friendly devices are now available and the most appropriate quantRTK can be selected depending on the number of samples and the budget available.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Schematic presentation of rating matrix employed.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4581857&req=5

pone.0138530.g002: Schematic presentation of rating matrix employed.

Mentions: Overall assessment. To provide the reader an assessment not only of laboratory parameters, but also with information on the user- and field-friendliness, including cost, availability, handling of hazardous material and waste management, a rating system was established with scores ranging from 0 (lowest) to 5 (best) according to the categories presented in Fig 2. Because it was considered that analytical performance is of foremost importance, its score was multiplied by two.


Comparative Validation of Five Quantitative Rapid Test Kits for the Analysis of Salt Iodine Content: Laboratory Performance, User- and Field-Friendliness.

Rohner F, Kangambèga MO, Khan N, Kargougou R, Garnier D, Sanou I, Ouaro BD, Petry N, Wirth JP, Jooste P - PLoS ONE (2015)

Schematic presentation of rating matrix employed.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4581857&req=5

pone.0138530.g002: Schematic presentation of rating matrix employed.
Mentions: Overall assessment. To provide the reader an assessment not only of laboratory parameters, but also with information on the user- and field-friendliness, including cost, availability, handling of hazardous material and waste management, a rating system was established with scores ranging from 0 (lowest) to 5 (best) according to the categories presented in Fig 2. Because it was considered that analytical performance is of foremost importance, its score was multiplied by two.

Bottom Line: Results from the quantRTK were compared against iodometric titration for validity.Of the quantRTK tested, the iCheck® and I-Reader® showed most consistent performance and ease of use, and a newly developed paper-based method (saltPAD) holds promise if further developed.User- and field-friendly devices are now available and the most appropriate quantRTK can be selected depending on the number of samples and the budget available.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: GroundWork LLC, Crans-près-Céligny, Switzerland.

ABSTRACT

Background: Iodine deficiency has important health and development consequences and the introduction of iodized salt as national programs has been a great public health success in the past decades. To render national salt iodization programs sustainable and ensure adequate iodization levels, simple methods to quantitatively assess whether salt is adequately iodized are required. Several methods claim to be simple and reliable, and are available on the market or are in development.

Objective: This work has validated the currently available quantitative rapid test kits (quantRTK) in a comparative manner for both their laboratory performance and ease of use in field settings.

Methods: Laboratory performance parameters (linearity, detection and quantification limit, intra- and inter-assay imprecision) were conducted on 5 quantRTK. We assessed inter-operator imprecision using salt of different quality along with the comparison of 59 salt samples from across the globe; measurements were made both in a laboratory and a field setting by technicians and non-technicians. Results from the quantRTK were compared against iodometric titration for validity. An 'ease-of-use' rating system was developed to identify the most suitable quantRTK for a given task.

Results: Most of the devices showed acceptable laboratory performance, but for some of the devices, use by non-technicians revealed poorer performance when working in a routine manner. Of the quantRTK tested, the iCheck® and I-Reader® showed most consistent performance and ease of use, and a newly developed paper-based method (saltPAD) holds promise if further developed.

Conclusions: User- and field-friendly devices are now available and the most appropriate quantRTK can be selected depending on the number of samples and the budget available.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus