Kinlay S
Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Newcastle, NSW.
Med J Aust. 1988 Aug 1;149(3):126-9. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1988.tb120534.x.
Fifty-three patients from a general practice and 33 subjects who were in a community-screening promotion underwent total cholesterol level measurements both with a portable Reflotron system and by a standardized laboratory procedure. The intraclass correlation coefficient between the paired measurements was equal to 0.956; this suggests that the results of the Reflotron system agreed very closely with those of the laboratory procedure. In spite of this agreement, the Reflotron instrument, on average, gave lower results than did the laboratory procedure (mean difference, -0.164 mmol/L; 95% confidence interval, -0.094 to -0.234 mmol/L). This difference is small and, in comparison with other sources of variation in cholesterol measurement, is unlikely to be important in day-to-day clinical practice. However, the difference between the two methods appeared to be related to the cholesterol level (larger differences at lower cholesterol levels). In large studies, where small differences in cholesterol levels are important, this difference should be considered against the obvious convenience of rapid portable cholesterol measurements.
来自一家普通诊所的53名患者以及33名参与社区筛查推广活动的受试者,分别使用便携式Reflotron系统和标准化实验室程序进行了总胆固醇水平测量。配对测量之间的组内相关系数为0.956;这表明Reflotron系统的结果与实验室程序的结果非常接近。尽管有这种一致性,但Reflotron仪器给出的结果平均比实验室程序低(平均差异为-0.164 mmol/L;95%置信区间为-0.094至-0.234 mmol/L)。这种差异很小,与胆固醇测量中的其他变异来源相比,在日常临床实践中不太可能具有重要意义。然而,两种方法之间的差异似乎与胆固醇水平有关(在较低胆固醇水平时差异较大)。在大型研究中,胆固醇水平的微小差异很重要,在考虑快速便携式胆固醇测量的明显便利性时,应考虑这种差异。