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

Regression plot of the comparison between the reference method and each quantRTK; A: technician’s analyses; B: non-technician’s analysis.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

pone.0138530.g003: Regression plot of the comparison between the reference method and each quantRTK; A: technician’s analyses; B: non-technician’s analysis.

Mentions: To further the system validation, 59 salt samples of various origins were measured in duplicates on each quantRTK, once conducted by a technician and once by a non-technician. The agreement between the reference method and each of the quantRTK is graphically presented once when conducted by a technician and once when conducted by a non-technician, see Fig 3A and 3B.


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)

Regression plot of the comparison between the reference method and each quantRTK; A: technician’s analyses; B: non-technician’s analysis.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

pone.0138530.g003: Regression plot of the comparison between the reference method and each quantRTK; A: technician’s analyses; B: non-technician’s analysis.
Mentions: To further the system validation, 59 salt samples of various origins were measured in duplicates on each quantRTK, once conducted by a technician and once by a non-technician. The agreement between the reference method and each of the quantRTK is graphically presented once when conducted by a technician and once when conducted by a non-technician, see Fig 3A and 3B.

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