Suppr超能文献

胆固醇酶法与参考方法之间的偏差。

Bias between enzymatic methods and the reference method for cholesterol.

作者信息

Kroll M H, Lindsey H, Greene J, Sliva C, Hainline A, Elin R J

机构信息

Clinical Pathology Department, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892.

出版信息

Clin Chem. 1988 Jan;34(1):131-5.

PMID:3338142
Abstract

Assaying 312 serum samples, we compared four enzymatic methods for serum cholesterol with the Reference Method (modified Abell-Kendall) of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The means for the aca, TDx, and SMAC methods (2.27, 2.27, and 2.24 g/L, respectively) were significantly higher (P less than 0.05) than those of the Reference Method and the RA-1000 method (2.19 and 2.18 g/L, respectively). The biased methods had positive proportional and (or) systematic biases. Results with these methods were 2.6% to 4.9% higher than with the Reference Method. The assigned concentrations of cholesterol in the calibration materials for the SMAC and aca agreed with those obtained by the Reference Method, but were lower for the TDx and higher for the RA-1000. These findings document positive biases for cholesterol with three enzymatic methods and suggest that misassignment of calibrators is not primarily responsible for the biases found with the aca and SMAC. It may, however, to be a significant factor for the TDx.

摘要

通过检测312份血清样本,我们将四种血清胆固醇酶法与疾病控制中心(CDC)的参考方法(改良的阿贝尔 - 肯德尔法)进行了比较。aca、TDx和SMAC方法的均值(分别为2.27、2.27和2.24 g/L)显著高于(P小于0.05)参考方法和RA - 1000方法的均值(分别为2.19和2.18 g/L)。有偏差的方法存在正比例偏差和(或)系统偏差。这些方法的结果比参考方法高2.6%至4.9%。SMAC和aca校准材料中胆固醇的指定浓度与参考方法获得的浓度一致,但TDx的指定浓度较低,而RA - 1000的指定浓度较高。这些发现证明了三种酶法在胆固醇检测上存在正偏差,并表明校准物的错误赋值并非aca和SMAC方法偏差的主要原因。然而,这可能是TDx方法偏差的一个重要因素。

相似文献

5
Testing cholesterol accuracy. Performance of several common laboratory instruments.
JAMA. 1988 Nov 4;260(17):2552-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.260.17.2552.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验