Suppr超能文献

六种商业技术在糖尿病患者微量白蛋白尿测量中的比较。

Comparison of six commercial techniques in the measurement of microalbuminuria in diabetic patients.

作者信息

Tiu S C, Lee S S, Cheng M W

机构信息

Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kowloon, Hong Kong.

出版信息

Diabetes Care. 1993 Apr;16(4):616-20. doi: 10.2337/diacare.16.4.616.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the advantages and drawbacks of six commercially available techniques in the measurement of microalbuminuria in diabetic patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Timed overnight urine samples from 75 patients in our diabetic clinic were tested with 2 qualitative tests (Micral-Test and Microbumintest) and assayed with 4 quantitative tests, which used different methodologies: double-antibody RIA, RID, IT, and NEPH. All tests were commercially available. The double-antibody RIA was taken as the golden standard. All urine samples were either negative or trace by Albustix (Ames, Elkhart, IN). Interobserver variation for the 2 qualitative tests was assessed by asking 12 experienced nurses to read the color changes on the dipsticks and the tablets simultaneously, using test solutions with albumin concentrations of 16, 32, and 64 mg/L.

RESULTS

The 75 urine samples contained 0-154.2 mg/L of albumin. Correlation coefficients of RID, NEPH, and IT with RIA were 0.970, 0.975, and 0.974, respectively. Intra-assay and interassay CVs ranged from 1.36-11.5%. Microbumintest had a higher sensitivity (100 vs. 75%), but lower specificity (82.5 vs. 87.3%) than Micral-Test. Considerable interobserver variation existed in the matching of colors for both tests. Discrepancies were especially significant with Microbumintest, with 8 of 12 nurses misreading the 32 mg/L level.

CONCLUSIONS

Correlations of the 3 quantitative methods with RIA were all > 0.970. Choice of test may depend more on considerations such as time, space, number of specimens to be handled, and availability of instruments. Both qualitative tests showed a relatively low specificity. Positive tests must be confirmed with quantitative assays before microalbuminuria is diagnosed. Microbumintest had a higher sensitivity, but its unacceptably high interobserver variation and lower specificity were serious drawbacks.

摘要

目的

评估六种市售技术在糖尿病患者微量白蛋白尿测量中的优缺点。

研究设计与方法

对糖尿病门诊的75例患者采集过夜定时尿样,用2种定性试验(Micral-Test和Microbumintest)进行检测,并用4种定量试验进行分析,这4种定量试验采用不同方法:双抗体放射免疫分析(RIA)、散射比浊法(RID)、免疫透射比浊法(IT)和胶乳增强免疫比浊法(NEPH)。所有检测均有市售产品。以双抗体RIA作为金标准。所有尿样用尿蛋白试纸(Albustix,Ames公司,美国印第安纳州埃尔克哈特)检测结果均为阴性或微量。通过让12名经验丰富的护士同时读取试纸条和片剂上的颜色变化来评估这2种定性试验的观察者间差异,使用白蛋白浓度分别为16、32和64mg/L的测试溶液。

结果

75份尿样中白蛋白含量为0 - 154.2mg/L。RID、NEPH和IT与RIA的相关系数分别为0.970、0.975和0.974。批内和批间变异系数范围为1.36% - 11.5%。与Micral-Test相比,Microbumintest具有更高的灵敏度(100%对75%),但特异性较低(82.5%对87.3%)。两种试验在颜色匹配方面均存在显著的观察者间差异。Microbumintest的差异尤为显著,12名护士中有8名误读了32mg/L水平。

结论

3种定量方法与RIA的相关性均>0.970。检测方法的选择可能更多地取决于时间、空间、待处理标本数量以及仪器可用性等因素。两种定性试验的特异性相对较低。在诊断微量白蛋白尿之前,阳性试验必须用定量分析加以证实。Microbumintest具有较高的灵敏度,但其观察者间差异过高且特异性较低,是严重的缺点。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验