一项研究,以确定湿化学仪器(easylyte)与干化学分析仪(vitros 350)估算的电解质(血清钠和钾)结果之间的一致性

Sharmistha Chatterjee, D. M, Kaushik Majumder, Indranil Chakraborty
{"title":"一项研究,以确定湿化学仪器(easylyte)与干化学分析仪(vitros 350)估算的电解质(血清钠和钾)结果之间的一致性","authors":"Sharmistha Chatterjee, D. M, Kaushik Majumder, Indranil Chakraborty","doi":"10.22159/ajpcr.2024.v17i6.50511","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: The objective of the study was to assess the agreement between results of electrolytes (serum sodium and potassium) estimated by a wet chemistry instrument with that obtained by a dry chemistry analyzer.\nMethods: It was an observational analytical cross-sectional study done in the Departmental clinical laboratory. The samples were selected randomly from the usual lab workflow. All the samples were first run on the Easylyte (wet chemistry) and then run on the Vitros 350 (dry chemistry). The paired data thus obtained were compiled and tabulated and then statistically analyzed.\nResults: The agreement of the results between the two methods was evaluated using the Bland–Altman difference plot and the Passing–Bablok Regression Equation and the Deming regression studies. By analyzing the diagram of Bland–Altman, it is seen that for sodium, the average bias is of −2.22; limits of agreement being −26.12–21.77. For potassium, Bland Altman plots show a bias of −0.21; limits of agreement −0.61–0.19. Passing Bablock regression calculated an intercept of −56.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) (−100, −28) and Slope of 1.43 for sodium measurements and calculated an intercept of −0.706, 95% CI (−0.66, −0.45) and Slope of 1.2 for potassium estimation.\nConclusion: Statistical analysis revealed conflicting solutions. There is a great discrepancy between the results of the electrolyte estimation by the two methods since the methodologies are not identical.","PeriodicalId":8528,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A STUDY TO ESTABLISH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RESULTS OF ELECTROLYTES (SERUM SODIUM AND POTASSIUM) ESTIMATED BY A WET CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENT (EASYLYTE) WITH THAT OBTAINED BY A DRY CHEMISTRY ANALYZER (VITROS 350)\",\"authors\":\"Sharmistha Chatterjee, D. M, Kaushik Majumder, Indranil Chakraborty\",\"doi\":\"10.22159/ajpcr.2024.v17i6.50511\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: The objective of the study was to assess the agreement between results of electrolytes (serum sodium and potassium) estimated by a wet chemistry instrument with that obtained by a dry chemistry analyzer.\\nMethods: It was an observational analytical cross-sectional study done in the Departmental clinical laboratory. The samples were selected randomly from the usual lab workflow. All the samples were first run on the Easylyte (wet chemistry) and then run on the Vitros 350 (dry chemistry). The paired data thus obtained were compiled and tabulated and then statistically analyzed.\\nResults: The agreement of the results between the two methods was evaluated using the Bland–Altman difference plot and the Passing–Bablok Regression Equation and the Deming regression studies. By analyzing the diagram of Bland–Altman, it is seen that for sodium, the average bias is of −2.22; limits of agreement being −26.12–21.77. For potassium, Bland Altman plots show a bias of −0.21; limits of agreement −0.61–0.19. Passing Bablock regression calculated an intercept of −56.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) (−100, −28) and Slope of 1.43 for sodium measurements and calculated an intercept of −0.706, 95% CI (−0.66, −0.45) and Slope of 1.2 for potassium estimation.\\nConclusion: Statistical analysis revealed conflicting solutions. There is a great discrepancy between the results of the electrolyte estimation by the two methods since the methodologies are not identical.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8528,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2024.v17i6.50511\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2024.v17i6.50511","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究旨在评估湿化学仪器与干化学分析仪估算的电解质(血清钠和钾)结果之间的一致性:这是一项在科室临床实验室进行的观察性横断面分析研究。样本从实验室常规工作流程中随机抽取。所有样本首先在 Easylyte(湿化学)上运行,然后在 Vitros 350(干化学)上运行。对由此获得的配对数据进行汇编和制表,然后进行统计分析:结果:使用布兰德-阿尔特曼差异图、帕辛-巴勃洛克回归方程和戴明回归研究对两种方法的结果一致性进行了评估。通过分析布兰德-阿尔特曼图可以看出,钠的平均偏差为-2.22;一致性极限为-26.12-21.77。就钾而言,布兰德-阿尔特曼图显示偏差为-0.21;一致性极限为-0.61-0.19。通过巴布洛克回归计算,钠测量的截距为-56.86,95%置信区间(CI)为(-100,-28),斜率为 1.43;钾估计的截距为-0.706,95%置信区间(CI)为(-0.66,-0.45),斜率为 1.2:统计分析揭示了相互矛盾的解决方案。结论:统计分析显示了相互矛盾的解决方案,两种方法的电解质估计结果存在很大差异,因为方法并不完全相同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A STUDY TO ESTABLISH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RESULTS OF ELECTROLYTES (SERUM SODIUM AND POTASSIUM) ESTIMATED BY A WET CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENT (EASYLYTE) WITH THAT OBTAINED BY A DRY CHEMISTRY ANALYZER (VITROS 350)
Objectives: The objective of the study was to assess the agreement between results of electrolytes (serum sodium and potassium) estimated by a wet chemistry instrument with that obtained by a dry chemistry analyzer. Methods: It was an observational analytical cross-sectional study done in the Departmental clinical laboratory. The samples were selected randomly from the usual lab workflow. All the samples were first run on the Easylyte (wet chemistry) and then run on the Vitros 350 (dry chemistry). The paired data thus obtained were compiled and tabulated and then statistically analyzed. Results: The agreement of the results between the two methods was evaluated using the Bland–Altman difference plot and the Passing–Bablok Regression Equation and the Deming regression studies. By analyzing the diagram of Bland–Altman, it is seen that for sodium, the average bias is of −2.22; limits of agreement being −26.12–21.77. For potassium, Bland Altman plots show a bias of −0.21; limits of agreement −0.61–0.19. Passing Bablock regression calculated an intercept of −56.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) (−100, −28) and Slope of 1.43 for sodium measurements and calculated an intercept of −0.706, 95% CI (−0.66, −0.45) and Slope of 1.2 for potassium estimation. Conclusion: Statistical analysis revealed conflicting solutions. There is a great discrepancy between the results of the electrolyte estimation by the two methods since the methodologies are not identical.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
REVERSE-PHASE HIGH-PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY METHOD DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION FOR THE QUANTIFICATION OF SUGAMMADEX IN BULK AND PHARMACEUTICAL DOSAGE FORM CLINICAL PROFILE AND PREGNANCY OUTCOMES OF COVID POSITIVE PREGNANT WOMEN IN PHASE I ANDII INFECTION – A COMPARATIVE STUDY EFFECTIVENESS OF WRIST BLOCK FOR SURGERY OF FRACTURE PROXIMAL INTERPHALANGEAL JOINT: A CASE REPORT COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN EARLY AND LATE LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY IN TREATMENT OF ACUTE CHOLECYSTITIS IN BUNDELKHAND REGION POST-OPERATIVE URINARY RETENTION AFTER SPINAL ANESTHESIA IN HERNIA SURGERY: A PROSPECTIVE, COMPARATIVE DOUBLE-BLIND STUDY BETWEEN ROPIVACAINE HEAVY 0.75% AND BUPIVACAINE HEAVY 0.5%
×
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