Skip to main content
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis logoLink to Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis
. 2005 Sep 16;19(5):196–198. doi: 10.1002/jcla.20077

Comparison of manual and automated ELISA methods for serum ferritin analysis

Fabian Rohner 1,, Christophe Zeder 1, Michael B Zimmermann 1, Richard F Hurrell 1
PMCID: PMC6808104  PMID: 16170808

Abstract

Serum ferritin concentration is a sensitive measure of body iron stores. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of two commercially available enzyme‐linked immunoassays (ELISAs) for serum ferritin: a widely used manual assay kit (Spectro Ferritin MT®), and a new fully automated assay (Immulite®). We analyzed serum samples from Moroccan school‐aged children (n=51) from a rural area with a high prevalence of iron deficiency anemia (IDA). Four replicates of each sample were analyzed using both assays. For the manual method, the interassay repeatability was 24%, 22%, and 11%, and intraassay precision was 18.3%, 9.2%, and 9.1% at increasing serum ferritin concentrations. Using the automated assay, the interassay repeatability was 7%, 6%, and 6%, and intraassay precision was 1.5%, 5.4%, and 5.5% at increasing serum ferritin concentrations. The two assays were well correlated (y=1.16x+1.83; r=0.98). However, the limits of agreement (LOAs) were wide, particularly at low concentrations. A comparison of the assay results with recommended cutoffs for serum ferritin generated sharply different estimates of the prevalence of iron deficiency (ID) in the sample. We conclude that the automated assay has several potential advantages compared to the manual method, including better precision, less operator dependence, and faster sample through‐put. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 19:196–198, 2005. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Keywords: immunoassay, ferritin, serum, automated, manual

REFERENCES

  • 1. World Health Organization, United Nations Children's Fund, et al . Iron deficiency anemia: assessment, prevention, and control. WHO/NHD/01.3. Geneva: WHO; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Cook JD. Defining optimal body iron. Proc Nutr Soc 1999;58:489–495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Mast AE, Blinder MA, Gronowski AM, Chumley C, Scott MG. Clinical utility of the soluble transferrin receptor and comparison with serum ferritin in several populations. Clin Chem 1998;44:45–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Zemelka S, Biesalski HK. Measurement of ferritin levels: comparison of a commercial IRMA to an in‐house ELISA method. J Immunoassay Immunochem 2001;22:371–384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Hess SY, Zimmermann MB, Adou P, Torresani T, Hurrell RF. Treatment of iron deficiency in goitrous children improves the efficacy of iodized salt in Cote d'Ivoire. Am J Clin Nutr 2002;75:743–748. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Zimmermann MB, Zeder C, Chaouki N, Saad A, Torresani T, Hurrell RF. Dual fortification of salt with iodine and microencapsulated iron: a randomized, double‐blind, controlled trial in Moroccan schoolchildren. Am J Clin Nutr 2003;77:425–432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986:307–310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES