Koch T R, Mehta U, Lee H, Aziz K, Temel S, Donlon J A, Sherwin R
Department of Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore 21201.
Clin Chem. 1987 Dec;33(12):2262-7.
We studied the bias and precision of serum cholesterol analysis by physician's office analyzers. Total imprecision (CV range, %) for analysis of serum pools was: Abbott Vision 1.5%-1.9%; Ames Seralyzer 3.9%-4.5%; BMD Reflotron 2.3%-3.8%; Chrometrics Cholesterol Test System 2.3%-2.8%; Kodak DT-60 1.6%-2.2%. The Ames Seralyzer exhibited an excessive between-run component of variation. We collected, from 109 volunteers, samples of venous serum, heparin-treated whole blood, heparin-treated plasma, and fingerstick whole blood, and analyzed each type (where possible) with each system; serum was also analyzed in duplicate (by a proposed Reference Method) at the Centers for Disease Control. For assays with serum, the BMD Reflotron and Kodak DT-60 exhibited negative bias. All systems gave lower results for plasma and whole blood than for serum. All systems except the Kodak DT-60 were less precise for analysis of patients' sera than for analysis of serum pools; between-specimen variables may influence the results of these systems.
我们研究了医师办公室分析仪对血清胆固醇分析的偏差和精密度。血清样本分析的总不精密度(变异系数范围,%)为:雅培维视1.5%-1.9%;艾姆斯血清分析仪3.9%-4.5%;BMD反射仪2.3%-3.8%;Chrometrics胆固醇检测系统2.3%-2.8%;柯达DT-60 1.6%-2.2%。艾姆斯血清分析仪的批间变异成分过高。我们从109名志愿者身上采集了静脉血清、肝素处理的全血、肝素处理的血浆和指尖全血样本,并使用每个系统对每种类型的样本(在可能的情况下)进行分析;疾病控制中心还对血清进行了一式两份的分析(采用一种推荐的参考方法)。对于血清检测,BMD反射仪和柯达DT-60表现出负偏差。所有系统对血浆和全血的检测结果均低于对血清的检测结果。除柯达DT-60外,所有系统对患者血清分析的精密度均低于对血清样本分析的精密度;样本间变量可能会影响这些系统的检测结果。