[糖化血红蛋白分析仪的比较:D-10、Variant II Turbo、Cobas Integra 800和Afinion AS100]。

Jin Young Lee, Ki Sook Hong, Sung Eun Cho
{"title":"[糖化血红蛋白分析仪的比较:D-10、Variant II Turbo、Cobas Integra 800和Afinion AS100]。","authors":"Jin Young Lee,&nbsp;Ki Sook Hong,&nbsp;Sung Eun Cho","doi":"10.3343/kjlm.2010.30.4.345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance and agreement among HbA(1c) values measured using selected analyzers certified by the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) and standardized by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>HbA(1c) determined using D-10 (Bio-Rad, USA), Variant II Turbo (Turbo; Bio-Rad, USA), Cobas Integra 800 (Integra; Roche, Switzerland) and Afinion AS100 (Afinion; Axis-Shield, Norway) were compared with each other. Precision and method comparisons with Deming regression were evaluated according to CLSI recommendations. We also compared the HbA(1c) values obtained with each analyzer using either IFCC or NGSP methods by correlation analysis and kappa statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The repeatability and method/device precisions of D-10 and Afinion were acceptable. The correlation coefficients of HbA(1c) were 0.986 for D-10 vs. Afinion, 0.997 for D-10 vs. Turbo, 0.988 for D-10 vs. Integra, and 0.991 for Integra vs. Afinion. The average biases of HbA(1c) Afinion (IFCC) and HbA(1c) Integra (IFCC) against HbA(1c) D-10 (NGSP) were -1.90% and -1.79%, respectively. Kappa agreement statistics for the three diabetic control group HbA(1c) values of \"less than 6.5%,\" \"6.5%-7.5%,\" and \"greater than 7.5%\" for D-10 vs. Turbo, D-10 vs. Integra, and D-10 vs. Afinion were 0.872, 0.836, and 0.833, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The strong correlations and good clinical agreements of HbA(1c) between each analyzer expressed in terms of either NGSP or IFCC-derived NGSP indicate that these analyzers can be used interchangeably.</p>","PeriodicalId":17890,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine","volume":"30 4","pages":"345-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3343/kjlm.2010.30.4.345","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Comparison of HbA1c analyzers: D-10, Variant II Turbo, Cobas Integra 800, and Afinion AS100].\",\"authors\":\"Jin Young Lee,&nbsp;Ki Sook Hong,&nbsp;Sung Eun Cho\",\"doi\":\"10.3343/kjlm.2010.30.4.345\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance and agreement among HbA(1c) values measured using selected analyzers certified by the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) and standardized by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>HbA(1c) determined using D-10 (Bio-Rad, USA), Variant II Turbo (Turbo; Bio-Rad, USA), Cobas Integra 800 (Integra; Roche, Switzerland) and Afinion AS100 (Afinion; Axis-Shield, Norway) were compared with each other. Precision and method comparisons with Deming regression were evaluated according to CLSI recommendations. We also compared the HbA(1c) values obtained with each analyzer using either IFCC or NGSP methods by correlation analysis and kappa statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The repeatability and method/device precisions of D-10 and Afinion were acceptable. The correlation coefficients of HbA(1c) were 0.986 for D-10 vs. Afinion, 0.997 for D-10 vs. Turbo, 0.988 for D-10 vs. Integra, and 0.991 for Integra vs. Afinion. The average biases of HbA(1c) Afinion (IFCC) and HbA(1c) Integra (IFCC) against HbA(1c) D-10 (NGSP) were -1.90% and -1.79%, respectively. Kappa agreement statistics for the three diabetic control group HbA(1c) values of \\\"less than 6.5%,\\\" \\\"6.5%-7.5%,\\\" and \\\"greater than 7.5%\\\" for D-10 vs. Turbo, D-10 vs. Integra, and D-10 vs. Afinion were 0.872, 0.836, and 0.833, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The strong correlations and good clinical agreements of HbA(1c) between each analyzer expressed in terms of either NGSP or IFCC-derived NGSP indicate that these analyzers can be used interchangeably.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17890,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine\",\"volume\":\"30 4\",\"pages\":\"345-50\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3343/kjlm.2010.30.4.345\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3343/kjlm.2010.30.4.345\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3343/kjlm.2010.30.4.345","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

背景:本研究的目的是评估使用经国家糖蛋白标准化计划(NGSP)认证并由国际临床化学和检验医学联合会(IFCC)标准化的选定分析仪测量的HbA(1c)值的性能和一致性。方法:HbA(1c)测定采用D-10 (Bio-Rad, USA), Variant II Turbo (Turbo;Bio-Rad,美国),Cobas Integra 800 (Integra;Roche,瑞士)和Afinion AS100 (Afinion;Axis-Shield,挪威)相互比较。根据CLSI建议评估与Deming回归的精度和方法比较。我们还通过相关分析和kappa统计比较了使用IFCC或NGSP方法获得的每个分析仪的HbA(1c)值。结果:D-10和Afinion的重复性和方法/装置精密度均可接受。D-10与Afinion、D-10与Turbo、D-10与Integra、Integra与Afinion的HbA(1c)相关系数分别为0.986、0.997、0.988和0.991。HbA(1c) Afinion (IFCC)和HbA(1c) Integra (IFCC)对HbA(1c) D-10 (NGSP)的平均偏差分别为-1.90%和-1.79%。D-10与Turbo、D-10与Integra、D-10与Afinion三个糖尿病对照组HbA(1c)值“小于6.5%”、“6.5%-7.5%”和“大于7.5%”的Kappa协议统计值分别为0.872、0.836和0.833。结论:以NGSP或ifcc衍生的NGSP表达的每种分析仪之间的HbA(1c)具有很强的相关性和良好的临床一致性,表明这些分析仪可以互换使用。
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
[Comparison of HbA1c analyzers: D-10, Variant II Turbo, Cobas Integra 800, and Afinion AS100].

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance and agreement among HbA(1c) values measured using selected analyzers certified by the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) and standardized by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC).

Methods: HbA(1c) determined using D-10 (Bio-Rad, USA), Variant II Turbo (Turbo; Bio-Rad, USA), Cobas Integra 800 (Integra; Roche, Switzerland) and Afinion AS100 (Afinion; Axis-Shield, Norway) were compared with each other. Precision and method comparisons with Deming regression were evaluated according to CLSI recommendations. We also compared the HbA(1c) values obtained with each analyzer using either IFCC or NGSP methods by correlation analysis and kappa statistics.

Results: The repeatability and method/device precisions of D-10 and Afinion were acceptable. The correlation coefficients of HbA(1c) were 0.986 for D-10 vs. Afinion, 0.997 for D-10 vs. Turbo, 0.988 for D-10 vs. Integra, and 0.991 for Integra vs. Afinion. The average biases of HbA(1c) Afinion (IFCC) and HbA(1c) Integra (IFCC) against HbA(1c) D-10 (NGSP) were -1.90% and -1.79%, respectively. Kappa agreement statistics for the three diabetic control group HbA(1c) values of "less than 6.5%," "6.5%-7.5%," and "greater than 7.5%" for D-10 vs. Turbo, D-10 vs. Integra, and D-10 vs. Afinion were 0.872, 0.836, and 0.833, respectively.

Conclusions: The strong correlations and good clinical agreements of HbA(1c) between each analyzer expressed in terms of either NGSP or IFCC-derived NGSP indicate that these analyzers can be used interchangeably.

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
Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine
Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine 医学-医学实验技术
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Green urine – understanding its importance Use of tandem mass spectrometry for newborn screening of 6 lysosomal storage disorders in a Korean population. Prevalence of plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance and its association with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase and AmpC beta-lactamase in Enterobacteriaceae. Antimicrobial resistance determinants in imipenem-nonsusceptible Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii complex isolated in Daejeon, Korea. Serial interferon-gamma release assays for the diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection in patients treated with immunosuppressive agents.
×
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