E. Lee-Lewandrowski, J. Flood, R. Zak, David A Griggs, K. Lewandrowski
{"title":"Abaxis Piccolo即时化学分析仪的评价:与罗氏Cobas C501的比较","authors":"E. Lee-Lewandrowski, J. Flood, R. Zak, David A Griggs, K. Lewandrowski","doi":"10.1097/POC.0000000000000136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this study, we performed method validations for the Abaxis Piccolo Xpress assays for total protein, albumin, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin, calcium, creatinine, urea nitrogen, and glucose compared with the Roche Cobas c501 analyzer. The validation included linear reportable range, imprecision, and assessment of accuracy and bias by method crossover. Although some biases between the methods were observed, these could be reconciled by adjustments to the normal reference ranges. Overall, we found that these assays performed at an accepted level for clinical use.","PeriodicalId":20262,"journal":{"name":"Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology","volume":"1 1","pages":"102–104"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the Abaxis Piccolo Point-of-Care Chemistry Analyzer: Comparison to the Roche Cobas C501\",\"authors\":\"E. Lee-Lewandrowski, J. Flood, R. Zak, David A Griggs, K. Lewandrowski\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/POC.0000000000000136\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In this study, we performed method validations for the Abaxis Piccolo Xpress assays for total protein, albumin, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin, calcium, creatinine, urea nitrogen, and glucose compared with the Roche Cobas c501 analyzer. The validation included linear reportable range, imprecision, and assessment of accuracy and bias by method crossover. Although some biases between the methods were observed, these could be reconciled by adjustments to the normal reference ranges. Overall, we found that these assays performed at an accepted level for clinical use.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20262,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"102–104\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/POC.0000000000000136\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/POC.0000000000000136","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
在本研究中,我们对Abaxis Piccolo Xpress检测总蛋白、白蛋白、丙氨酸转氨酶、天冬氨酸转氨酶、碱性磷酸酶、总胆红素、钙、肌酐、尿素氮和葡萄糖的方法进行了验证,并与罗氏Cobas c501分析仪进行了比较。验证包括线性报告范围、不精确性以及通过方法交叉评估准确性和偏倚。虽然观察到方法之间存在一些偏差,但这些偏差可以通过调整正常参考范围来调和。总的来说,我们发现这些检测在临床应用中处于可接受的水平。
Evaluation of the Abaxis Piccolo Point-of-Care Chemistry Analyzer: Comparison to the Roche Cobas C501
Abstract In this study, we performed method validations for the Abaxis Piccolo Xpress assays for total protein, albumin, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin, calcium, creatinine, urea nitrogen, and glucose compared with the Roche Cobas c501 analyzer. The validation included linear reportable range, imprecision, and assessment of accuracy and bias by method crossover. Although some biases between the methods were observed, these could be reconciled by adjustments to the normal reference ranges. Overall, we found that these assays performed at an accepted level for clinical use.