Frazer J F, Stasiowski P, Boyd G K
Ther Drug Monit. 1983;5(1):109-12. doi: 10.1097/00007691-198303000-00011.
Two blood-sampling techniques, capillary and venous, were compared using the EMIT method. No difference was found in reproducibility. However, persistent positive bias of 0.628 micrograms/ml (p less than 0.01) was noted with the capillary sampling method. Any hemolysis that occurred in the capillary sampling technique did not significantly affect the assay.
采用酶放大免疫测定技术(EMIT)比较了两种采血技术,即毛细血管采血和静脉采血。结果发现,两种采血技术在可重复性方面没有差异。然而,毛细血管采血法存在0.628微克/毫升的持续正偏差(p<0.01)。毛细血管采血技术中发生的任何溶血现象对检测结果均无显著影响。