Methodological evaluation of a turbidimetric method for the analysis of serum cystatin c and comparison with a nephelometric method

IF 0.6 4区 生物学 Q4 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY Turkish Journal of Biochemistry-turk Biyokimya Dergisi Pub Date : 2013-01-01 DOI:10.5505/TJB.2013.81300
A. Toprak, B. Kinas, A. Uras
{"title":"Methodological evaluation of a turbidimetric method for the analysis of serum cystatin c and comparison with a nephelometric method","authors":"A. Toprak, B. Kinas, A. Uras","doi":"10.5505/TJB.2013.81300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: In reliable clinical laboratory practice, to use test results for the maximum benefit of patients, the new method in a laboratory should be validated. In this study our purpose is to evaluate performance characteristics of cystatin C immunoturbidimetric method in Roche Cobas Integra 800 analyser, and compare this method with immunonephelometric method in Dade Behring BNII analyser. Methods: Precision, linearity, recovery, interference experiments in Roche Cobas Integra 800 analyser and method comparison experiments were performed for cystatin C. Results: For Roche Cobas Integra 800 instrument, low and high concentrations for withinrun and day to day CV values were 3.97%, 1.32% and 7.24%, 4.16% respectively. In linearity experiment, regression graph equation was found to be y = 0.9817x 0.0149 and r2 = 0.99. In recovery experiment, % recovery was found to be 81. In hemolysis interference experiment, interference was detected for the hemoglobin concetrations above 200 mg/dL, Method comparison experiment was performed by analyzing 100 patients serum in both Dade Behring BNII nephelometry and Roche Cobas Integra 800 analyser. Correlation factor was r2=0.95, Deming regression equation was y = 0,98x + 0,22. Conclusion: It was found for turbidimetric method, CV values were higher, % recovery was lower and hemolysis interference was detected at lower concentrations than what was stated in package insert of cystatin C kits. However, Deming regression results indicated turbidimetric and nephelometric methods were compatible.","PeriodicalId":23355,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Biochemistry-turk Biyokimya Dergisi","volume":"22 1","pages":"239-242"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Biochemistry-turk Biyokimya Dergisi","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5505/TJB.2013.81300","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: In reliable clinical laboratory practice, to use test results for the maximum benefit of patients, the new method in a laboratory should be validated. In this study our purpose is to evaluate performance characteristics of cystatin C immunoturbidimetric method in Roche Cobas Integra 800 analyser, and compare this method with immunonephelometric method in Dade Behring BNII analyser. Methods: Precision, linearity, recovery, interference experiments in Roche Cobas Integra 800 analyser and method comparison experiments were performed for cystatin C. Results: For Roche Cobas Integra 800 instrument, low and high concentrations for withinrun and day to day CV values were 3.97%, 1.32% and 7.24%, 4.16% respectively. In linearity experiment, regression graph equation was found to be y = 0.9817x 0.0149 and r2 = 0.99. In recovery experiment, % recovery was found to be 81. In hemolysis interference experiment, interference was detected for the hemoglobin concetrations above 200 mg/dL, Method comparison experiment was performed by analyzing 100 patients serum in both Dade Behring BNII nephelometry and Roche Cobas Integra 800 analyser. Correlation factor was r2=0.95, Deming regression equation was y = 0,98x + 0,22. Conclusion: It was found for turbidimetric method, CV values were higher, % recovery was lower and hemolysis interference was detected at lower concentrations than what was stated in package insert of cystatin C kits. However, Deming regression results indicated turbidimetric and nephelometric methods were compatible.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
浊度法分析血清胱抑素c的方法学评价及与浊度法的比较
目的:在可靠的临床实验室实践中,为了使检测结果最大限度地为患者服务,应对实验室新方法进行验证。在本研究中,我们的目的是评估胱抑素C免疫浊度法在罗氏Cobas Integra 800分析仪中的性能特点,并将该方法与Dade Behring BNII分析仪中的免疫浊度法进行比较。方法:在罗氏Cobas Integra 800分析仪上进行胱抑素c的精密度、线性度、回收率、干扰实验和方法对比实验。结果:罗氏Cobas Integra 800仪器低、高浓度的运行内CV值和日CV值分别为3.97%、1.32%和7.24%、4.16%。在线性实验中,回归图方程为y = 0.9817x 0.0149, r2 = 0.99。在回收率实验中,回收率为81%。溶血干扰实验中,对血红蛋白浓度在200 mg/dL以上的患者进行干扰检测,采用Dade Behring BNII比浊仪和罗氏Cobas Integra 800分析仪对100例患者的血清进行方法对比实验。相关因子r2=0.95, Deming回归方程为y = 0,98x + 0,22。结论:采用浊度法检测胱抑素C时,CV值较高,回收率较低,且检测溶血干扰的浓度低于试剂盒说明书。然而,戴明回归结果表明浊度法和浊度法是相容的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Turkish Journal of Biochemistry (TJB), official journal of Turkish Biochemical Society, is issued electronically every 2 months. The main aim of the journal is to support the research and publishing culture by ensuring that every published manuscript has an added value and thus providing international acceptance of the “readability” of the manuscripts published in the journal.
期刊最新文献
Expression of a functional recombinant vascular endothelial growth factor 165 (VEGF 165 ) in Arabidopsis thaliana An assessment of phytochemical constituents and antioxidant potential of Delphinium malabaricum (Huth) Munz Within the context of good clinical laboratory practices evaluation of measurement uncertainty of Thyroid Stimulating Hormone and Prostate Specific Antigen parameters Effects of Dietary Chicken Grill Oil and Sunflower Seed Oil on Blood and Liver Oxidant/Antioxidant Status and Liver Function Tests in Laying Japanese Quails (Coturnix coturnix japonica) C-Reactive Protein vs. High - Sensitivity C - Reactive Protein: What is the Difference?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1