ELISA in the multiplex era: Potentials and pitfalls
Proteomics - Clinical Applications, ISSN: 1862-8354, Vol: 9, Issue: 3-4, Page: 406-422
2015
- 328Citations
- 601Captures
- 2Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations328
- Citation Indexes323
- 323
- CrossRef259
- Patent Family Citations5
- Patent Families5
- Captures601
- Readers601
- 601
- Mentions2
- References2
- Wikipedia2
Review Description
Multiplex immunoassays confer several advantages over widely adopted singleplex immunoassays including increased efficiency at a reduced expense, greater output per sample volume ratios and higher throughput predicating more resolute, detailed diagnostics and facilitating personalised medicine. Nonetheless, to date, relatively few protein multiplex immunoassays have been validated for in vitro diagnostics in clinical/point-of-care settings. This review article will outline the challenges, which must be ameliorated prior to the widespread integration of multiplex immunoassays in clinical settings: (i) biomarker validation; (ii) standardisation of immunoassay design and quality control (calibration and quantification); (iii) availability, stability, specificity and cross-reactivity of reagents; (iv) assay automation and the use of validated algorithms for transformation of raw data into diagnostic results. A compendium of multiplex immunoassays applicable to in vitro diagnostics and a summary of the diagnostic products currently available commercially are included, along with an analysis of the relative states of development for each format (namely planar slide based, suspension and planar/microtitre plate based) with respect to the aforementioned issues.
Bibliographic Details
Wiley
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know