Girdwood A H, Clain J E
S Afr Med J. 1981 Feb 21;59(8):262-4.
Results of pancreatic function tests, using simple aspiration, simple aspiration with marker correction and marker perfusion methods were compared. With simple aspiration alone, approximately one-third of the marker was not recovered. Yet with the marker correction method the volume (and consequently other measurements), appeared to be greatly overcorrected, probably owing to poor mixing of marker and endogenous secretions. In contrast, the marker perfusion method yielded data which were 8-24% higher than those for simple aspiration for the various outputs; this difference was not statistically significant. It is concluded, firstly, that marker correction of a simple aspiration technique is inaccurate because of poor mixing; secondly, that because marker perfusion methods yield arithmetically but not statistically greater outputs than simple aspirations tests, the latter are probably adequate for diagnostic tests of pancreatic function.
对采用单纯抽吸法、标记物校正单纯抽吸法和标记物灌注法进行的胰腺功能测试结果进行了比较。仅采用单纯抽吸法时，约三分之一的标记物未回收。然而，采用标记物校正法时，体积（以及其他测量值）似乎被过度校正，这可能是由于标记物与内源性分泌物混合不佳所致。相比之下，标记物灌注法得出的数据在各种输出方面比单纯抽吸法高出8% - 24%；这种差异无统计学意义。得出的结论是，首先，由于混合不佳，单纯抽吸技术的标记物校正不准确；其次，由于标记物灌注法得出的输出在算术上比单纯抽吸测试大，但无统计学差异，因此后者可能足以用于胰腺功能的诊断测试。
