Henderson A R
Department of Biochemistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
Clin Lab Med. 1997 Dec;17(4):625-54.
Comparing the performance of one biochemical marker of myocardial damage with another is bedeviled with many problems, including a lack of uniform calibration between instruments providing measurements of the same analyte and differing reference ranges and decision thresholds. Diagnostic groupings and various gold standards create difficulties in comparing analytic results. There is a lack of uniformity in test assessments and their use for diagnostic and prognostic purposes. Finally, there is an almost complete absence of data from economic and decision analyses of test usage. It is argued that a much more stringent and rigorous approach to these aspects is essential. The use of biochemical markers of cardiac damage is in a dynamic state, with new applications continually appearing and new markers being developed. It is therefore essential that a uniform and rigorous outlook be maintained to ensure both optimal and economic test utilization based on the previously outlined principles.
比较一种心肌损伤生化标志物与另一种的性能存在许多问题,包括提供相同分析物测量值的仪器之间缺乏统一校准、参考范围和判定阈值不同。诊断分组和各种金标准给比较分析结果带来困难。测试评估及其用于诊断和预后目的缺乏一致性。最后,几乎完全没有关于测试使用的经济和决策分析数据。有人认为,对这些方面采取更加严格和严谨的方法至关重要。心脏损伤生化标志物的使用处于动态状态,新的应用不断出现,新的标志物也在不断开发。因此,必须保持统一和严谨的观点,以确保基于上述原则实现最佳和经济的测试利用。