Hesse A, Bongartz D, Heynck H, Berg W
Department of Urology, University of Bonn, Germany.
Clin Biochem. 1996 Oct;29(5):467-72. doi: 10.1016/0009-9120(96)00067-7.
Five methods for oxalate analysis in urine are compared with respect to reliability, accuracy, and practicability.
Suppressed and unsuppressed ionchromatography, as well as the enzymatic Sigma-Kit, achieve low coefficients of variation for the within-batch imprecision (1.1-8.0%) and between-day imprecision (1.6-7.2%). The results of these methods are comparable and the mean recovery rate ranges between 99.7% and 100.9%. The enzymatic Boehringer-Kit gives higher CV (3.1-9.5%) and the results are lower than those obtained by the methods mentioned above; the recovery rate is sufficient (92.4%).
The handling of the chromatographic methods is very easy, whereas the enzymatic methods require more manual work. In relation to sample throughput, charges for the enzymatic methods are about twice as high as for the chromatographic methods. In respect to reliability and accuracy, the chromotropic acid method cannot be recommended (recovery rate 68%).
比较尿液中草酸盐分析的五种方法在可靠性、准确性和实用性方面的差异。
抑制型和非抑制型离子色谱法以及酶法西格玛试剂盒，批内不精密度（1.1 - 8.0%）和日间不精密度（1.6 - 7.2%）的变异系数较低。这些方法的结果具有可比性，平均回收率在99.7%至100.9%之间。酶法勃林格试剂盒的变异系数较高（3.1 - 9.5%），结果低于上述方法；回收率足够（92.4%）。
色谱法操作非常简便，而酶法需要更多的手工操作。就样本通量而言，酶法的费用约为色谱法的两倍。在可靠性和准确性方面，不能推荐变色酸法（回收率68%）。
