两种马胰岛素测量方法的比较。
Comparison of two methods for measurement of equine insulin.
作者信息
Banse Heidi E, McCann Joseph, Yang Fan, Wagg Catherine, McFarlane Dianne
机构信息
Department of Physiological Sciences, Center for Veterinary Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK (Banse, McCann, Yang, McFarlane).
Department of Veterinary Clinical and Diagnostic Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (Wagg).
出版信息
J Vet Diagn Invest. 2014 Jul;26(4):527-530. doi: 10.1177/1040638714536560.
Diagnosis of equine hyperinsulinemia requires an accurate method for quantification of equine insulin concentrations. The objectives of the current study were to compare 2 commercially available techniques for measurement of equine insulin, the radioimmunoassay (RIA) and chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA). Recovery was poor for both assays, but worse for the CIA. Serial dilution of a high endogenous insulin sample yielded better linearity for the RIA ( r = 0.99, P < 0.001) than the CIA ( r = 0.92, P = 0.009). Bland-Altman analysis indicated that the CIA was, on average, 91 pmol/l higher than the RIA, with wide limits of agreement (95% limits of agreement: -508 to 691 pmol/l). These findings suggest that results between the assays should not be considered interchangeable.
马高胰岛素血症的诊断需要一种准确的方法来定量马胰岛素浓度。本研究的目的是比较两种市售的马胰岛素测量技术，即放射免疫测定法（RIA）和化学发光免疫测定法（CIA）。两种测定方法的回收率都很差，但CIA更差。对高内源性胰岛素样本进行系列稀释后，RIA的线性更好（r = 0.99，P < 0.001），而CIA的线性较差（r = 0.92，P = 0.009）。Bland-Altman分析表明，CIA平均比RIA高91 pmol/l，一致性界限较宽（95%一致性界限：-508至691 pmol/l）。这些发现表明，两种测定方法的结果不应被视为可互换的。
Zotero 插件