Barclay E A, Coia J E, Kale P C, Masterton R G
Central Microbiological Laboratories, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh.
J Clin Pathol. 1994 Dec;47(12):1119-20. doi: 10.1136/jcp.47.12.1119.
Two quantitative, automated methods for the determination of C reactive protein (CRP) were compared: turbidimetry (Cobas Fara II, Roche, Welwyn Garden City, UK) and fluorescence polarisation TDx, Abbott, Wokingham, UK). One hundred and twenty routine serum samples submitted for measurement of CRP were tested using both procedures. The results were compared using regression line analysis and showed a high degree of correlation (r2 = 0.99, X coefficient = 1.01, constant = 0.11). C reactive protein can be accurately measured using the automated turbidimetric method which can be recommended as an alternative to fluorescence polarisation.
比较了两种测定C反应蛋白（CRP）的定量自动化方法：比浊法（英国韦林花园城罗氏公司的Cobas Fara II）和荧光偏振法（英国沃金厄姆雅培公司的TDx）。使用这两种方法对120份提交检测CRP的常规血清样本进行了检测。通过回归线分析比较结果，显示出高度相关性（r2 = 0.99，X系数 = 1.01，常数 = 0.11）。使用自动化比浊法可以准确测量C反应蛋白，该方法可作为荧光偏振法的替代方法推荐使用。
