Tripodi A, Chantarangkul V, Bottasso B, Mannucci P M
Angelo Bianchi Bonomi Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center, IRCCS Maggiore Hospital, Milano, Italy.
Thromb Haemost. 1994 May;71(5):605-8.
We compared F 1 + 2 results obtained with two commercial ELISA methods (Behring and Baxter) assaying the same plasma samples. There was little correlation between the results of the two methods, as shown by the low correlation coefficient (r = 0.50) and by low percentage of concordant classification (normal or abnormal) of the samples (24%). Such poor correlation is probably due to the different anticoagulants suggested, because correlation improved when both methods were carried out in plasmas collected with the same anticoagulant. However, the Baxter method still gave significantly lower F 1 + 2 values than the Behring method. Assuming that this difference is due to the use of standards with different F 1 + 2 concentrations, the standards from Behring and Baxter were evaluated by both methods. Parallel dose-response curves were obtained when the standards were run by the Behring method but not by the Baxter method, indicating that the two standards are qualitatively different. This study demonstrates that the two F 1 + 2 methods give different values for the same samples and that these values are poorly correlated. Standardization of the F 1 + 2 assays cannot be achieved easily simply by using a common standard and the use of different anticoagulants appears to be the main reason for poor standardization.
我们比较了使用两种商业酶联免疫吸附测定法(贝林和百特)对相同血浆样本检测获得的F1 + 2结果。两种方法的结果之间几乎没有相关性,相关系数较低(r = 0.50)以及样本一致分类(正常或异常)的百分比低(24%)就表明了这一点。如此差的相关性可能是由于所建议的抗凝剂不同,因为当两种方法都在用相同抗凝剂采集的血浆中进行时相关性得到了改善。然而,百特方法给出的F1 + 2值仍显著低于贝林方法。假设这种差异是由于使用了具有不同F1 + 2浓度的标准品,两种方法对贝林和百特的标准品进行了评估。当标准品用贝林方法检测时获得了平行的剂量反应曲线,但用百特方法检测时未获得,这表明这两种标准品在质量上是不同的。本研究表明,两种F1 + 2方法对相同样本给出不同的值,并且这些值相关性很差。F1 + 2检测的标准化不能仅仅通过使用通用标准轻易实现,并且使用不同的抗凝剂似乎是标准化差的主要原因。