Comparative analysis on the coagulation convention test rusult of the Sta-CT and CA1500 automatic coagulation analyzer / 国际检验医学杂志

Objective To evaluate the relationship and bias of the Stago-CT and CA1500 automatic coagulation analyzer.Meth-ods The relationship and bias of PT,APTT,INR,FIB,TT,DD examined by the Stago-CT and CA1500 automatic coagulation ana-lyzer by using NCCLS EP9-A2.Results For the six items(PT,APTT,INR,FIB,TT,DD)the r2 were 0.996 9,0.969 1,0.967 7, 0.955 8,0.972 6,0.949 6,respectively,and the bias were 2.9,0.88,5.22,1.16,3.48,20.3.Conclusion The five items (PT, APTT,INR,FIB,TT)at a good relationship(r2 >0.95)by the Stago-CT and CA1500 automatic coagulation analyzer except for the DD(r2 =0.949 6);The bias of the five items(PT,APTT,INR,FIB,TT)were within in the United States of demanding that a third of the clinical laboratory of CLIA 88′bias,except for the DD.

The assessment of comparability between different biochemical analyzer system / 国际检验医学杂志

Objective To assess the comparability between different biochemical testing systems.Methods The research ana-lyzed the results of serum enzyme in two biochemical analyzer and figured out the bias estimation by the document of EP9-A2 and explored the comparison of AST、ALT、ALP、LDH and CK in different detected systems.Results It is indicated that in the differ-ent biochemical analysis systems,the comparability of all the indexes could be accepted except for ALP.Conclusion In order to provide a scientific basis for clinic results,comparability test between the methods should be performed and figured out the bias esti-mation while use different detecting systems to monitor the same index.

Veracidad de un analizador de gasometria para determinar glucemia, respecto a un metodo de laboratorio convencional / Reliability of a gas analyzer to determine glycemia compared to the conventional laboratory method

Objetivos:Determinar el grado de veracidad en los resultados de glucosa, medidos en un equipo de gasometría, mediante lacomparación con un procedimiento de uso habitual en el laboratorio, siguiendo el procedimiento indicado en la guía EP9–A2 delClinical and Laboratory Standards Institute(CLSI).Diseño:Estudio descriptivo con muestreo no probabilístico.Institución:HospitalEdgardo Rebagliati Martins, EsSalud, Lima, Perú.Material:Muestra sanguínea de 234 sujetos provenientes de los servicios deemergencia y la unidad de cuidados intensivos.Métodos:Se procesó glucemia en los equipos ADVIA1800 y el gasómetro ABL800.Se comparó los resultados de ambos analizadores siguiendo las directrices de la mencionada guía, además del análisis gráfico deBland-Altman y el cálculo del coeficiente de concordancia correlación (CCC) de Lin.Principales medidas de resultados:Concentraciónde glucosa sérica.Resultados:La media de glucemia obtenida fue 1,6 mg/dL mayor para ABL800 que para el ADVIA1800. Los dosmétodos de medida seguían una relación lineal, obteniéndose un coeficiente de correlación de 0,9995, con un intervalo de confianza(IC) al 95% de 0,9994a 0,9996. Los resultados de glucosa del método de estudio fueron aceptables según los requerimientos decalidad, lo cual se confirmó con los análisis estadísticos de Bland-Altman y el valor del CCCL de 0,9995, con un IC de 95% de 0,9993a 0,9996.Conclusiones:El analizador ABL800 resultó adecuado para la monitorización de glucemia; presentó una buena asociaciónlineal y veraz, cuando fue comparado con el método de referencia del laboratorio.

Objectives: To determine the glucose reliability results measured in a gas equipment as compared with a reference method commonly used in the laboratory. The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guide EP9- A2 instructions were followed. Design: Descriptive study with non-probability sampling. Setting: Hospital Edgardo Rebagliati Martins, EsSalud, Lima, Peru. Materials: Blood sample of 234 subjects from the emergency services and intensive care unit. Methods: Blood glucose was processed with the ADVIA1800 equipment and the ABL800 gasometer. Results of both analyzers were compared following the mentioned guide directives, the Bland-Altman plot analysis and the Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) calculation. Main outcome measures: Serum glucose concentration. Results: Average blood glucose levels obtained were 1.6 mg/dL higher for ABL800 than for ADVIA1800. Both methods showed a high positive correlation (beta coefficient 0.9995 and 95 per cent, 95 per cent CI 0.9994 to 0.9996). Glucose results for the method studied were acceptable, as confirmed with the Bland-Altman statistical analysis (0.9995 CCC value, 95 per cent CI 0.9993 to 0.9996). Conclusions: The ABL800 analyzer is suitable for blood glucose monitoring, presenting an excellent correlation with the reference laboratory method.