Passey R B, Gillum R L, Fuller J B, Urry F M, Baron M L
Am J Clin Pathol. 1980 Mar;73(3):362-8. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/73.3.362.
The authors compared three urea nitrogen methods using six instruments: (1) the diacetyl monoxime method used with a continuous flow analyzer Sequential Multiple Analyzer Model 4 + 2; (2) the diacetyl monoxime method used with an older continuous flow analyzer (Sequential Multiple Analyzer Model 6/60; (3) the diacetyl monoxime method used with a third continuous flow system, AutoAnalyzer Model I; (4) the urease-conductivity method performed on the Beckman System I; (5) the urease-glutamate dehydrogenase method performed on the DuPont Automatic Clinical Analyzer; (6) the urease-glutamate dehydrogenase method done on a centrifugal analyzer, CentrifiChem. We evaluated each method for the following: (1) within-run precision; (2) between-day precision; (3) linearity of the relationship between concentration and instrument output; (4) specificity; (5) carry-over; (6) comparison of urea nitrogen values for samples from patients.
(1)双乙酰一肟法与连续流动分析仪(Sequential Multiple Analyzer Model 4 + 2)联用;(2)双乙酰一肟法与较旧的连续流动分析仪(Sequential Multiple Analyzer Model 6/60)联用;(3)双乙酰一肟法与第三种连续流动系统(AutoAnalyzer Model I)联用;(4)在贝克曼系统I上进行的脲酶-电导率法;(5)在杜邦自动临床分析仪上进行的脲酶-谷氨酸脱氢酶法;(6)在离心分析仪(CentrifiChem)上进行的脲酶-谷氨酸脱氢酶法。我们针对以下方面评估了每种方法:(1)批内精密度;(2)日间精密度;(3)浓度与仪器输出之间关系的线性;(4)特异性;(5)携带污染;(6)患者样本尿素氮值的比较。