3 种不同类型血液粘度计的比较研究。

Ju Seok Oh, Prem Prabhakaran, Dong Kil Seo, Do Yeon Kim, Woonhyoung Lee, Kyung Hyun Ahn
{"title":"3 种不同类型血液粘度计的比较研究。","authors":"Ju Seok Oh, Prem Prabhakaran, Dong Kil Seo, Do Yeon Kim, Woonhyoung Lee, Kyung Hyun Ahn","doi":"10.3233/CH-242256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p> The greater the viscosity of the blood, the more difficult its flow becomes, leading to an increased incidence of diseases caused by blood circulation disorders. These diseases are commonly associated with the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular systems. High blood viscosity is a primary cause of circulatory system diseases. Studies have shown that accurately measuring blood viscosity and applying this data in clinical trials can help prevent circulatory system diseases. Viscosity data can vary depending on the measurement methods used, even when these methods are based on hydrodynamic principles. Despite using approved blood viscometers, the results often differ depending on the type of viscometer used, potentially causing confusion within the medical field. Informing the medical community about these differences and the level of error associated with each measurement method can help reduce this confusion. To our knowledge, the degree of difference in viscosity measurement results due to different measurement methods and the reasons for these differences have not yet been thoroughly explored. In this study, we selected three blood viscosity measurement methods registered with the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of Korea to analyze the same canine blood. The viscosity measurements were carried out using each device and compared. The parallel plate and scanning capillary methods yielded similar viscosity values, while the cone plate method showed lower viscosity values. The viscosity of blood, as measured by the three viscometers, differed, indicating that more experimental data must be accumulated to evaluate the cause of these differences. In this paper, we identified several causes of inconsistency and suggested measures to avoid this confusion. However, confirming that the test results show systematic differences is expected to assist clinicians who diagnose and prescribe treatments based on blood viscosity results. The findings of this comparative study are anticipated to serve as a starting point for establishing guidelines or standards for blood viscosity measurement methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":93943,"journal":{"name":"Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation","volume":" ","pages":"211-219"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative study of blood viscometers of 3 different types.\",\"authors\":\"Ju Seok Oh, Prem Prabhakaran, Dong Kil Seo, Do Yeon Kim, Woonhyoung Lee, Kyung Hyun Ahn\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/CH-242256\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p> The greater the viscosity of the blood, the more difficult its flow becomes, leading to an increased incidence of diseases caused by blood circulation disorders. These diseases are commonly associated with the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular systems. High blood viscosity is a primary cause of circulatory system diseases. Studies have shown that accurately measuring blood viscosity and applying this data in clinical trials can help prevent circulatory system diseases. Viscosity data can vary depending on the measurement methods used, even when these methods are based on hydrodynamic principles. Despite using approved blood viscometers, the results often differ depending on the type of viscometer used, potentially causing confusion within the medical field. Informing the medical community about these differences and the level of error associated with each measurement method can help reduce this confusion. To our knowledge, the degree of difference in viscosity measurement results due to different measurement methods and the reasons for these differences have not yet been thoroughly explored. In this study, we selected three blood viscosity measurement methods registered with the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of Korea to analyze the same canine blood. The viscosity measurements were carried out using each device and compared. The parallel plate and scanning capillary methods yielded similar viscosity values, while the cone plate method showed lower viscosity values. The viscosity of blood, as measured by the three viscometers, differed, indicating that more experimental data must be accumulated to evaluate the cause of these differences. In this paper, we identified several causes of inconsistency and suggested measures to avoid this confusion. However, confirming that the test results show systematic differences is expected to assist clinicians who diagnose and prescribe treatments based on blood viscosity results. The findings of this comparative study are anticipated to serve as a starting point for establishing guidelines or standards for blood viscosity measurement methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93943,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"211-219\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/CH-242256\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/CH-242256","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

血液粘稠度越高,流动就越困难,导致血液循环障碍引起的疾病发病率增加。这些疾病通常与心脑血管系统有关。血液粘稠度高是循环系统疾病的主要原因。研究表明,准确测量血液粘度并将这些数据应用于临床试验,有助于预防循环系统疾病。粘度数据会因使用的测量方法不同而不同,即使这些方法是基于流体力学原理。尽管使用的是经认可的血液粘度计,但不同类型的粘度计得出的结果往往不同,可能会在医学领域造成混淆。让医学界了解这些差异以及每种测量方法的相关误差水平有助于减少这种混淆。据我们所知,不同测量方法导致的粘度测量结果差异程度以及造成这些差异的原因尚未得到深入探讨。在本研究中,我们选择了在韩国食品药品安全部注册的三种血液粘度测量方法来分析相同的犬血。使用每种仪器进行粘度测量并进行比较。平行板法和毛细管扫描法测得的粘度值相似,而锥板法测得的粘度值较低。三种粘度计测得的血液粘度存在差异,这表明必须积累更多的实验数据才能评估造成这些差异的原因。在本文中,我们找出了造成不一致的几个原因,并提出了避免这种混淆的措施。不过,确认测试结果显示出系统性差异有望帮助临床医生根据血液粘度结果进行诊断和开具治疗处方。这项比较研究的结果有望成为制定血液粘度测量方法指南或标准的起点。
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 comparative study of blood viscometers of 3 different types.

 The greater the viscosity of the blood, the more difficult its flow becomes, leading to an increased incidence of diseases caused by blood circulation disorders. These diseases are commonly associated with the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular systems. High blood viscosity is a primary cause of circulatory system diseases. Studies have shown that accurately measuring blood viscosity and applying this data in clinical trials can help prevent circulatory system diseases. Viscosity data can vary depending on the measurement methods used, even when these methods are based on hydrodynamic principles. Despite using approved blood viscometers, the results often differ depending on the type of viscometer used, potentially causing confusion within the medical field. Informing the medical community about these differences and the level of error associated with each measurement method can help reduce this confusion. To our knowledge, the degree of difference in viscosity measurement results due to different measurement methods and the reasons for these differences have not yet been thoroughly explored. In this study, we selected three blood viscosity measurement methods registered with the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of Korea to analyze the same canine blood. The viscosity measurements were carried out using each device and compared. The parallel plate and scanning capillary methods yielded similar viscosity values, while the cone plate method showed lower viscosity values. The viscosity of blood, as measured by the three viscometers, differed, indicating that more experimental data must be accumulated to evaluate the cause of these differences. In this paper, we identified several causes of inconsistency and suggested measures to avoid this confusion. However, confirming that the test results show systematic differences is expected to assist clinicians who diagnose and prescribe treatments based on blood viscosity results. The findings of this comparative study are anticipated to serve as a starting point for establishing guidelines or standards for blood viscosity measurement methods.

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
Prognostic significance of serum inflammatory markers in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing revascularization therapy. Association between reduced hemoglobin-to-red cell distribution width ratio and elevated cardiovascular mortality in patients with diabetes: Insights from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Study, 1999-2018. The value of nomogram model combined with contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the differential diagnosis of cervical tuberculosis lymphadenitis and metastatic lymph node. PCSK9 inhibitor protects against myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury via inhibiting LRP8/GPX4-mediated ferroptosis. Encapsulated papillary carcinoma of breast: Comparative study of multimodal ultrasound manifestations and pathological features.
×
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