红细胞胆碱酯酶活性的实验室间比较

S. N. Kales, G. Polyhronopoulos, J. Aldrich, E. Dimitriadis, D. Christiani
{"title":"红细胞胆碱酯酶活性的实验室间比较","authors":"S. N. Kales, G. Polyhronopoulos, J. Aldrich, E. Dimitriadis, D. Christiani","doi":"10.1002/(SICI)1099-1301(199901/03)1:1<19::AID-JEM9>3.0.CO;2-Z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Comparisons of red blood cell cholinesterase values (AChE, EC 3.1.1.7) from different laboratories can be difficult. This study evaluated different methods of interlaboratory comparison. Eleven subjects gave triplicate samples for analysis by three commercial laboratories. Comparisons were made relative to the mid-point of each laboratory’s reference range (mid-range), and by transformation to Ellman assay activity in U/mL using published/derived conversion factors. To observe each laboratory’s reliability, four subjects submitted two additional duplicate samples to each laboratory. The mean intraspecimen variabilities were 3%, range 1%–8%; 4%, range 0–9%; and 13%, range 2%–24% for laboratories 1–3, respectively. The mean mid-range percent for laboratory 3 was substantially lower than the means for laboratories 1 and 2. Therefore, laboratory 3 values were adjusted based on the means for laboratories 1 and 2 and the mid-point suggested by laboratory 3’s assay kit. The mean AChE relative to these mid-points were 109%, 107%, and 107% for laboratories 1–3, respectively. Ellman activities were 19.0, 19.9 and 20.8 U/mL for laboratories 1–3, respectively. Intrasubject differences for both comparison methods showed agreement that approximated intraspecimen variabilities for each laboratory. Comparisons involving laboratory 3 showed the poorest agreement consistent with laboratory 3’s greater intraspecimen variation. AChE from different laboratories can be compared by both methods evaluated in this study. All comparisons are limited by the precision and reliability of the laboratories involved. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.","PeriodicalId":100780,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Medicine","volume":"24 1","pages":"19-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interlaboratory comparisons of red blood cell cholinesterase activity\",\"authors\":\"S. N. Kales, G. Polyhronopoulos, J. Aldrich, E. Dimitriadis, D. Christiani\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/(SICI)1099-1301(199901/03)1:1<19::AID-JEM9>3.0.CO;2-Z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Comparisons of red blood cell cholinesterase values (AChE, EC 3.1.1.7) from different laboratories can be difficult. This study evaluated different methods of interlaboratory comparison. Eleven subjects gave triplicate samples for analysis by three commercial laboratories. Comparisons were made relative to the mid-point of each laboratory’s reference range (mid-range), and by transformation to Ellman assay activity in U/mL using published/derived conversion factors. To observe each laboratory’s reliability, four subjects submitted two additional duplicate samples to each laboratory. The mean intraspecimen variabilities were 3%, range 1%–8%; 4%, range 0–9%; and 13%, range 2%–24% for laboratories 1–3, respectively. The mean mid-range percent for laboratory 3 was substantially lower than the means for laboratories 1 and 2. Therefore, laboratory 3 values were adjusted based on the means for laboratories 1 and 2 and the mid-point suggested by laboratory 3’s assay kit. The mean AChE relative to these mid-points were 109%, 107%, and 107% for laboratories 1–3, respectively. Ellman activities were 19.0, 19.9 and 20.8 U/mL for laboratories 1–3, respectively. Intrasubject differences for both comparison methods showed agreement that approximated intraspecimen variabilities for each laboratory. Comparisons involving laboratory 3 showed the poorest agreement consistent with laboratory 3’s greater intraspecimen variation. AChE from different laboratories can be compared by both methods evaluated in this study. All comparisons are limited by the precision and reliability of the laboratories involved. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.\",\"PeriodicalId\":100780,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Environmental Medicine\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"19-26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Environmental Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1301(199901/03)1:1<19::AID-JEM9>3.0.CO;2-Z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1301(199901/03)1:1<19::AID-JEM9>3.0.CO;2-Z","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

比较不同实验室的红细胞胆碱酯酶值(AChE, EC 3.1.1.7)可能很困难。本研究评估了不同的实验室间比较方法。11名受试者提供了三份样品供三个商业实验室分析。相对于每个实验室参考范围(中程)的中点进行比较,并使用已公布/导出的转换因子转化为以U/mL为单位的Ellman试验活性。为了观察每个实验室的可靠性,四名受试者向每个实验室提交了两个额外的重复样本。平均种内变异率为3%,范围为1% ~ 8%;4%,范围0-9%;实验室1-3的比例为13%,范围为2%-24%。实验室3的平均中间百分比大大低于实验室1和实验室2的平均值。因此,根据实验室1和2的平均值以及实验室3的检测试剂盒建议的中点,对实验室3的值进行了调整。实验室1-3相对于这些中点的平均AChE分别为109%、107%和107%。实验室1-3的Ellman活性分别为19.0、19.9和20.8 U/mL。两种比较方法的主体内差异显示了每个实验室近似的物种内变异的一致性。涉及实验室3的比较显示,与实验室3更大的种内差异一致的一致性最差。不同实验室的AChE可以通过本研究中评估的两种方法进行比较。所有的比较都受到所涉及实验室的精度和可靠性的限制。版权所有©1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interlaboratory comparisons of red blood cell cholinesterase activity
Comparisons of red blood cell cholinesterase values (AChE, EC 3.1.1.7) from different laboratories can be difficult. This study evaluated different methods of interlaboratory comparison. Eleven subjects gave triplicate samples for analysis by three commercial laboratories. Comparisons were made relative to the mid-point of each laboratory’s reference range (mid-range), and by transformation to Ellman assay activity in U/mL using published/derived conversion factors. To observe each laboratory’s reliability, four subjects submitted two additional duplicate samples to each laboratory. The mean intraspecimen variabilities were 3%, range 1%–8%; 4%, range 0–9%; and 13%, range 2%–24% for laboratories 1–3, respectively. The mean mid-range percent for laboratory 3 was substantially lower than the means for laboratories 1 and 2. Therefore, laboratory 3 values were adjusted based on the means for laboratories 1 and 2 and the mid-point suggested by laboratory 3’s assay kit. The mean AChE relative to these mid-points were 109%, 107%, and 107% for laboratories 1–3, respectively. Ellman activities were 19.0, 19.9 and 20.8 U/mL for laboratories 1–3, respectively. Intrasubject differences for both comparison methods showed agreement that approximated intraspecimen variabilities for each laboratory. Comparisons involving laboratory 3 showed the poorest agreement consistent with laboratory 3’s greater intraspecimen variation. AChE from different laboratories can be compared by both methods evaluated in this study. All comparisons are limited by the precision and reliability of the laboratories involved. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信