Huppert M, Chitjian P A, Gross A J
Appl Microbiol. 1970 Sep;20(3):328-32. doi: 10.1128/am.20.3.328-332.1970.
A Laboratory Branch Task Force of the National Communicable Disease Center has proposed a standardized complement fixation procedure (LBCF) and an adaptation of this to microtitration techniques (MT) as uniform methods for performing complement fixation (CF) tests. A common procedure should make CF results from one laboratory more comparable to another. In addition, it would be preferable if the common procedure reproduced the titer levels of a testing procedure which is to be replaced, particularly when valid clinical interpretations have been derived from the latter. Replicated sets of sera were tested by the LBCF, MT, and the standard Smith CF procedure for coccidioidomycosis. Results with all three procedures were highly reproducible within an acceptable one-tube variation of a twofold dilution series, but the frequency of one-tube variations was greater with the MT method than with the other two. There was no statistical difference in the titers obtained with the Smith and LBCF procedures, but there was a significant difference when the MT results were compared to those with the Smith method. The LBCF method should be acceptable as a standardized and uniform CF procedure for coccidioidomycosis, subject to comparative testing between different laboratories.
国家传染病中心实验室分部的一个特别工作组提出了一种标准化补体结合程序（LBCF）以及将其改编为微量滴定技术（MT）的方法，作为进行补体结合（CF）试验的统一方法。通用程序应使一个实验室的CF结果与另一个实验室的结果更具可比性。此外，如果通用程序能够重现即将被取代的检测程序的滴度水平，那就更好了，特别是当后者已经得出有效的临床解释时。用LBCF、MT和标准的史密斯CF程序对多组重复血清进行球孢子菌病检测。在两倍稀释系列的可接受单管变化范围内，所有三种程序的结果都具有高度可重复性，但MT方法的单管变化频率高于其他两种方法。用史密斯程序和LBCF程序获得的滴度没有统计学差异，但将MT结果与史密斯方法的结果进行比较时存在显著差异。LBCF方法作为球孢子菌病的标准化和统一CF程序应该是可以接受的，但需要在不同实验室之间进行对比测试。
