INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to evaluate two methods of macroprolactin (MaPRL) detection - precipitation with @entity968 ( @entity970 ) and ultrafiltration and to compare these techniques with "gold standard" - gel filtration chromatography (GFC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was conducted on 245 @entity1 - 45 with organic and 200 with functional @entity4089 . In all the subjects MaPRL was detected by precipitation with @entity970 and ultrafiltration. Additionally, gel filtration chromatography was performed in some of the serum samples. RESULTS: Macroprolactinaemia was detected in 27 @entity1 - 8 with @entity2013 and 19 with functional @entity4089 . Assessing positive and negative results for MaPRL, we observed high diagnostic agreement (95.9%) and positive correlation (r = 0.506, p < 0.001) between the methods. The results of precipitation and ultrafiltration positive for MaPRL were concordant in 63%. The dominance of MaPRL detected with precipitation and/or ultrafiltration was confirmed by GFC in 76% of cases (all @entity1 with functional @entity4089 ). Among 6 examined @entity1 with @entity2013 , GFC showed four false-positive results - 1 case of precipitation and 3 cases of ultrafiltration. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy of MaPRL detection with precipitation and ultrafiltration is comparable especially in cases of functional @entity4089 . In @entity1 with @entity2013 , precipitation seems to be a more efficient separation method.

Ultrafiltration - an alternative method to XXXX precipitation for macroprolactin detection.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients'] @entity4089 :: ('MESH:D006966', 'Disease') :: ['hyperprolactinaemia'] @entity2013 :: ('MESH:D015175', 'Disease') :: ['prolactinoma'] @entity970 :: ('CHEBI:46793', 'Chemical') :: ['PEG'] @entity968 :: ('MESH:D011092', 'Chemical') :: ['polyethylene glycol']
@entity968 :: (MESH:D011092,Chemical) :: ['polyethylene glycol']
