Baars J D, van Haard P M, Lombarts A J
Clin Chim Acta. 1986 Jul 30;158(2):173-8. doi: 10.1016/0009-8981(86)90233-0.
Udenfriend's (Sjoerdsma A, Weissbach H, Udenfriend S. J Am Med Assoc 1955; 159: 397) classical screening method for urinary 5-hydroxyindole-3-acetic acid (5-HIAA) is known to be subject to error due to food and drug interferences. Goldenberg (Goldenberg H. Clin Chem 1973; 19: 38-44) introduced a more specific and sensitive method, which has recently been modified by Zouheir Habbal (Zouheir Habbal M. Clin Chim Acta 1983; 130: 251-256). The latter method is shown to correlate fairly well with a high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) method in the 0-100 mumol/24 h range (reference values up to 34 mumol/24 h). It is suggested that elevated values in Udenfriend's screening method can be reliably checked by applying either method.
已知乌登弗里德（Sjoerdsma A、Weissbach H、Udenfriend S。《美国医学会杂志》1955年；159：397）经典的尿5-羟吲哚-3-乙酸（5-HIAA）筛查方法会因食物和药物干扰而出现误差。戈尔登伯格（Goldenberg H。《临床化学》1973年；19：38 - 44）引入了一种更特异、更灵敏的方法，该方法最近由祖海尔·哈巴尔（Zouheir Habbal M。《临床化学学报》1983年；130：251 - 256）进行了改进。结果表明，后一种方法在0 - 100 μmol/24小时范围内（参考值高达34 μmol/24小时）与高压液相色谱（HPLC）法有较好的相关性。建议通过应用这两种方法中的任何一种，都可以可靠地检查乌登弗里德筛查方法中升高的值。
