Mosca A, Paleari R, Madè A, Ferrero C, Locatelli M, Ceriotti F
Department of Sciences and Biomedical Technologies, University of Milan, Italy.
Clin Chem. 1998 Mar;44(3):632-8.
The intermethod variabilities of control materials and patient blood samples for the measurement of glycohemoglobin were compared. Sets of 50 blood samples and 15 control materials were analyzed by HPLC and affinity and immunochemical methods. For each pair of methods, the distances of the materials from the regression line of patient blood results (expressed as normalized residuals) were calculated. Only two of 15 controls had normalized residuals exceeding 3 standard deviations from the regression line. Total hemoglobin (Hb) content, Hb derivatives, and cellulose acetate electrophoresis demonstrated that only a minority of controls could be considered similar to patients' blood samples. We selected Menarini's and our home-prepared controls to simulate calibration of the different techniques by these materials. Intermethod calibration succeeded mostly in harmonizing results obtained by HPLC methods. On the contrary, calibration of the immunochemical techniques (Boehringer and Roche) did not improve intermethod agreement to a clinically useful level.
比较了糖化血红蛋白测量中对照物质和患者血液样本的方法间变异性。采用高效液相色谱法(HPLC)、亲和法和免疫化学法对50份血液样本和15种对照物质进行分析。对于每一对方法,计算物质与患者血液结果回归线的距离(以标准化残差表示)。15种对照物质中只有两种的标准化残差超过回归线的3个标准差。总血红蛋白(Hb)含量、Hb衍生物和醋酸纤维素电泳表明,只有少数对照物质可被认为与患者血液样本相似。我们选择美纳里尼公司的对照物质和我们自制的对照物质,以模拟用这些物质对不同技术进行校准。方法间校准大多成功地使HPLC方法获得的结果趋于一致。相反,免疫化学技术(勃林格殷格翰公司和罗氏公司)的校准并未将方法间一致性提高到临床有用的水平。