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。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验