LabPlus, Auckland Hospital, Park Road, Grafton, Auckland, New Zealand.
Clin Rheumatol. 2011 Sep;30(9):1215-20. doi: 10.1007/s10067-011-1716-3. Epub 2011 Apr 1.
There have been long-standing unpublished differences in rheumatoid factor (RF) results, based on the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia external quality assurance program. This study compared RF results between two commonly used commercial instruments. Serum samples were exchanged between a laboratory using a Beckman Immage immunonephelometer and another using a Roche Modular immunoturbidimeter. The World Health Organization (WHO) reference standard for RF (W1066) was then used to compare the two methods. The Roche immunoturbidimeter appears to have superior sensitivity. Furthermore, there is significant bias between the two instruments as levels of RF increase. Results from the WHO RF reference preparation correlated most closely with the results from the Roche immunoturbidimeter. Standardization for RF measurement is not optimal and has not been achieved between these two commonly used instruments. This may have clinical implications for patient management.
基于澳大利亚皇家病理学院的外部质量保证计划,类风湿因子 (RF) 的结果一直存在长期未公布的差异。本研究比较了两种常用商业仪器之间的 RF 结果。将使用贝克曼 Immage 免疫比浊仪的实验室和使用罗氏 Modular 免疫浊度计的实验室之间的血清样本进行交换。然后使用世界卫生组织 (WHO) 的 RF 参考标准 (W1066) 来比较两种方法。罗氏免疫比浊计似乎具有更高的灵敏度。此外,随着 RF 水平的升高,两种仪器之间存在显著的偏差。与罗氏免疫比浊计相比,来自 WHO RF 参考品的结果相关性最好。RF 测量的标准化尚未在这两种常用仪器之间实现,也不是最佳的。这可能对患者管理产生临床影响。