微粒增强免疫比浊法 (PEIT) 与高效液相色谱法 (HPLC) 在糖化血红蛋白 (HbA1c) 分析中的方法比较。

Shabnam Dildar, Sheharbano Imran, Farah Naz
{"title":"微粒增强免疫比浊法 (PEIT) 与高效液相色谱法 (HPLC) 在糖化血红蛋白 (HbA1c) 分析中的方法比较。","authors":"Shabnam Dildar, Sheharbano Imran, Farah Naz","doi":"10.1186/s40842-021-00123-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) technique is considered as a gold standard for HbA1c analysis however all laboratories cannot adopt it due to certain limitations. Our aim was to compare Particle Enhanced Immunoturbidimetry (PEIT) method with High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) for HbA1c analysis.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>All blood samples were analyzed by HPLC assay on a Bio-Rad D-10 analyzer and PEIT on an Erba XL-200 analyzer. Precision studies were undertaken and Coefficient of Variation (%CV) calculated. Systemic Error (SE), Random Error (RE) and Total Error (TE<sub>calc</sub>) were obtained. The Total Allowable Error (TEa) set by the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) for HbA1c is 6%.The acceptable evaluation method is where TE<sub>calc</sub> is less than TE<sub>a.</sub> RESULTS: The Precision studies were satisfactory with Coefficient of Variation (%CV) being less than 4% for both techniques. Mean HbA1c levels were slightly higher from HPLC than PEIT 9.07 ± 2.23% and 8.93 ± 2.10% respectively, although the difference was minimal. RE was 1.41%, TE<sub>calc</sub> was 1.55%, which was less than TEa set by the NGSP. Both methods strongly correlated with the correlation coefficient (r) 0.9716, p < 0.0001.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study showed HbA1c analysis by PEIT technique is precise, accurate, rapid and convenient and can be employed as an alternative to HPLC technique in countries where cost is a major problem for diagnosis and treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":56339,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Diabetes and Endocrinology","volume":"7 1","pages":"10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8201666/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Method comparison of Particle Enhanced Immunoturbidimetry (PEIT) with High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) for glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Shabnam Dildar, Sheharbano Imran, Farah Naz\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40842-021-00123-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) technique is considered as a gold standard for HbA1c analysis however all laboratories cannot adopt it due to certain limitations. Our aim was to compare Particle Enhanced Immunoturbidimetry (PEIT) method with High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) for HbA1c analysis.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>All blood samples were analyzed by HPLC assay on a Bio-Rad D-10 analyzer and PEIT on an Erba XL-200 analyzer. Precision studies were undertaken and Coefficient of Variation (%CV) calculated. Systemic Error (SE), Random Error (RE) and Total Error (TE<sub>calc</sub>) were obtained. The Total Allowable Error (TEa) set by the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) for HbA1c is 6%.The acceptable evaluation method is where TE<sub>calc</sub> is less than TE<sub>a.</sub> RESULTS: The Precision studies were satisfactory with Coefficient of Variation (%CV) being less than 4% for both techniques. Mean HbA1c levels were slightly higher from HPLC than PEIT 9.07 ± 2.23% and 8.93 ± 2.10% respectively, although the difference was minimal. RE was 1.41%, TE<sub>calc</sub> was 1.55%, which was less than TEa set by the NGSP. Both methods strongly correlated with the correlation coefficient (r) 0.9716, p < 0.0001.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study showed HbA1c analysis by PEIT technique is precise, accurate, rapid and convenient and can be employed as an alternative to HPLC technique in countries where cost is a major problem for diagnosis and treatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56339,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Diabetes and Endocrinology\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8201666/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Diabetes and Endocrinology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40842-021-00123-w\",\"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 Diabetes and Endocrinology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40842-021-00123-w","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

背景和目的:高效液相色谱(HPLC)技术被认为是 HbA1c 分析的黄金标准,但由于其某些局限性,并非所有实验室都能采用。我们的目的是比较颗粒增强免疫比浊法(PEIT)和高效液相色谱法(HPLC)在 HbA1c 分析中的应用:所有血样均在 Bio-Rad D-10 分析仪上用 HPLC 分析,在 Erba XL-200 分析仪上用 PEIT 分析。进行精密度研究并计算变异系数(%CV)。得出了系统误差(SE)、随机误差(RE)和总误差(TEcalc)。国家糖化血红蛋白标准化计划(NGSP)为 HbA1c 设定的总允许误差(TEa)为 6%。结果:精确度研究结果令人满意,两种技术的变异系数 (%CV) 均小于 4%。HPLC 的平均 HbA1c 水平略高于 PEIT,分别为 9.07 ± 2.23% 和 8.93 ± 2.10%,但差异很小。RE 为 1.41%,TEcalc 为 1.55%,低于 NGSP 设定的 TEa。两种方法具有很强的相关性,相关系数(r)为 0.9716,P 结论:我们的研究表明,PEIT 技术的 HbA1c 分析精确、准确、快速、方便,在诊断和治疗成本成为主要问题的国家,可用作 HPLC 技术的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Method comparison of Particle Enhanced Immunoturbidimetry (PEIT) with High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) for glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) analysis.

Background and objective: High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) technique is considered as a gold standard for HbA1c analysis however all laboratories cannot adopt it due to certain limitations. Our aim was to compare Particle Enhanced Immunoturbidimetry (PEIT) method with High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) for HbA1c analysis.

Method: All blood samples were analyzed by HPLC assay on a Bio-Rad D-10 analyzer and PEIT on an Erba XL-200 analyzer. Precision studies were undertaken and Coefficient of Variation (%CV) calculated. Systemic Error (SE), Random Error (RE) and Total Error (TEcalc) were obtained. The Total Allowable Error (TEa) set by the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) for HbA1c is 6%.The acceptable evaluation method is where TEcalc is less than TEa. RESULTS: The Precision studies were satisfactory with Coefficient of Variation (%CV) being less than 4% for both techniques. Mean HbA1c levels were slightly higher from HPLC than PEIT 9.07 ± 2.23% and 8.93 ± 2.10% respectively, although the difference was minimal. RE was 1.41%, TEcalc was 1.55%, which was less than TEa set by the NGSP. Both methods strongly correlated with the correlation coefficient (r) 0.9716, p < 0.0001.

Conclusion: Our study showed HbA1c analysis by PEIT technique is precise, accurate, rapid and convenient and can be employed as an alternative to HPLC technique in countries where cost is a major problem for diagnosis and treatment.

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
7
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Diabetes and Endocrinology is an open access journal publishing within the field of diabetes and endocrine disease. The journal aims to provide a widely available resource for people working within the field of diabetes and endocrinology, in order to improve the care of people affected by these conditions. The audience includes, but is not limited to, physicians, researchers, nurses, nutritionists, pharmacists, podiatrists, psychologists, epidemiologists, exercise physiologists and health care researchers. Research articles include patient-based research (clinical trials, clinical studies, and others), translational research (translation of basic science to clinical practice, translation of clinical practice to policy and others), as well as epidemiology and health care research. Clinical articles include case reports, case seminars, consensus statements, clinical practice guidelines and evidence-based medicine. Only articles considered to contribute new knowledge to the field will be considered for publication.
期刊最新文献
Does EFSA statement on Monacolin content of nutraceutical combinations impair their lipid lowering effect? The LopiGLIK experience. Propylthiouracil-induced vasculitis with alveolar hemorrhage after 31 years of treatment: a case report. The impact of insulin resistance and glycaemic control on insulin-like growth factor-1 in patients with type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study. Metanephrine mirage: distinguishing the phaeocopies, a case report and literature review. Microbial profile of diabetic foot osteomyelitis from the northwest of England.
×
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