JISCMail - ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN Archives

Assuming one (or a lab) switched owing to new developments in reagents and and methodology from using the RIA to using a luminescent assay and did not change/adjust the cost of the test but charged the same price for the test (previously based on the cost structure including radioisotope purchase and storage costs,cost and maintenance of isotope counters, licencing costs, waste disposal costs, added labour etc) because one (or a lab) is still using a "RIA" based on the said articles which

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Prof TS Pillay <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear members of the mailing list,

I have a simple (perhaps trivial even) but important question.

I have come across several relatively recent review articles in good journals where reference is made to the Diasorin Liaison nonisotopic/nonradioactive Vit D assay as a "radioimmunoassay" because it is based on the format of a previous RIA, i.e. uses an antibody as the capture reagent and a radiolabelled analyte analogue

to compete. The new assay uses Chemiluminescence and Diasorin calls it a CLIA, which is fine.

However, the articles insist on calling the CLIA assay an "RIA" even and another assertion is made (not by the same source) that since chemiluminescence

is a form of radiation, the RIA term still applies.

I would be grateful for collective thoughts on this.

Thanking you in advance
Tahir Pillay
--

Prof T.S. Pillay, MBChB, PhD, FRCPath, FCPath

Professor & Head
Department of Chemical Pathology
Faculty of Health Sciences
University of Pretoria

Pretoria
South Africa