中外健康文摘
中外健康文摘
중외건강문적
WORLD HEALTH DIGEST
2013年
8期
125-126
,共2页
黄海深%陈志通%唐光定%江伟河
黃海深%陳誌通%唐光定%江偉河
황해심%진지통%당광정%강위하
酶联免疫法%化学发光免疫法%甲胎蛋白%比较
酶聯免疫法%化學髮光免疫法%甲胎蛋白%比較
매련면역법%화학발광면역법%갑태단백%비교
ELISA%Chemiluminescent immunoassay%Alpha-fetoprotein%Comparison
目的对甲胎蛋白(AFP)试验进行方法学探讨。方法 ①对比实验用酶联免疫法和化学发光免疫法同时测定88例临床送检血清标本甲胎蛋白(AFP)的含量。②线性实验 将标准液按不同的浓度稀释后做线性实验。③精密度实验 用两法对低、中、高值质控品分别进行精密度实验。结果 ①结果表明,两法无显著差异(P>0.05),相关系数r=0.995,提示两法呈良好相关性。②线性实验显示酶联免疫法和化学发光免疫法分别在5~400 ng/ml和2~900 ng/ml范围内呈良好的线性关系。③精密度实验表明化学发光重复性好于酶联免疫法,特别是病理高值化学发光明显优于酶联免疫法。结论 化学发光免疫法的精密度和准确性均优于酶联免疫法。
目的對甲胎蛋白(AFP)試驗進行方法學探討。方法 ①對比實驗用酶聯免疫法和化學髮光免疫法同時測定88例臨床送檢血清標本甲胎蛋白(AFP)的含量。②線性實驗 將標準液按不同的濃度稀釋後做線性實驗。③精密度實驗 用兩法對低、中、高值質控品分彆進行精密度實驗。結果 ①結果錶明,兩法無顯著差異(P>0.05),相關繫數r=0.995,提示兩法呈良好相關性。②線性實驗顯示酶聯免疫法和化學髮光免疫法分彆在5~400 ng/ml和2~900 ng/ml範圍內呈良好的線性關繫。③精密度實驗錶明化學髮光重複性好于酶聯免疫法,特彆是病理高值化學髮光明顯優于酶聯免疫法。結論 化學髮光免疫法的精密度和準確性均優于酶聯免疫法。
목적대갑태단백(AFP)시험진행방법학탐토。방법 ①대비실험용매련면역법화화학발광면역법동시측정88례림상송검혈청표본갑태단백(AFP)적함량。②선성실험 장표준액안불동적농도희석후주선성실험。③정밀도실험 용량법대저、중、고치질공품분별진행정밀도실험。결과 ①결과표명,량법무현저차이(P>0.05),상관계수r=0.995,제시량법정량호상관성。②선성실험현시매련면역법화화학발광면역법분별재5~400 ng/ml화2~900 ng/ml범위내정량호적선성관계。③정밀도실험표명화학발광중복성호우매련면역법,특별시병리고치화학발광명현우우매련면역법。결론 화학발광면역법적정밀도화준학성균우우매련면역법。
Object: The methodology investigate of Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) test. Methods: ①Comparative experiments: The simultaneous determination of the serum samples of 88 patients censorship alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels by ELISA and chemiluminescent immunoassay. ②Linear experiments: the standard solution is diluted at different concentrations,then doing linear experiments.③Precision experiments: Doing precision experiments on low, medium and high-value quality control materials with the two methods. Results: ①The results show that no significant difference in the two methods(P>0.05). The correlation coefficient of r = 0.995, these two methods showed a good correlation. ②The linear experiments show that the enzyme linked immunosorbent assay and chemiluminescence immunoassay showed a good linear relationship between the range in 5~400ng/ml and 2~900ng/ml.③Precision experiments show that the repeatability of chemiluminescent immunoassay is better than the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, specifically at the pathological high value. Conclusion: The precision and accuracy of the chemiluminescent immunoassay are better than enzyme linked immunosorbent assay.