检验医学与临床
檢驗醫學與臨床
검험의학여림상
JOURNAL OF LABORATORY MEDICINE AND CLINICAL SCIENCES
2014年
23期
3236-3237
,共2页
张丽%管晓媛%段兵%黄一玲%田蕾%李一石
張麗%管曉媛%段兵%黃一玲%田蕾%李一石
장려%관효원%단병%황일령%전뢰%리일석
校准品%验证%可比性%批号%检验性能
校準品%驗證%可比性%批號%檢驗性能
교준품%험증%가비성%비호%검험성능
calibrator%verification%comparability%batch number%analytical performance
目的:以乳酸脱氢酶(LDH)为例,验证罗氏新批号自动生化分析系统校准品(Cfas)的检测性能。方法在罗氏Cobas C501全自动生化分析仪上,使用20份新鲜患者血清样本,于Cfas批号更换前后分别检测LDH。采用Bland‐Altman散点图方法,用Medcalc12.7.0统计学软件分析检测结果。结果散点图中,有19个点位于一致性界限(LoA)范围内,超过所有点的95%;LDH两次测定结果差值均数仅为-0.2 U/L ,与差值均数为0的线非常接近;LDH两次测量结果最大差值为8U/L,最大比对偏差为2.48%,小于比对偏差可接受标准(2.87%),这种偏差幅度在临床上可以接受。结论在更换Cfas批号前后LDH的两次检测结果具有一致性,新批号Cfas性能验证通过。
目的:以乳痠脫氫酶(LDH)為例,驗證囉氏新批號自動生化分析繫統校準品(Cfas)的檢測性能。方法在囉氏Cobas C501全自動生化分析儀上,使用20份新鮮患者血清樣本,于Cfas批號更換前後分彆檢測LDH。採用Bland‐Altman散點圖方法,用Medcalc12.7.0統計學軟件分析檢測結果。結果散點圖中,有19箇點位于一緻性界限(LoA)範圍內,超過所有點的95%;LDH兩次測定結果差值均數僅為-0.2 U/L ,與差值均數為0的線非常接近;LDH兩次測量結果最大差值為8U/L,最大比對偏差為2.48%,小于比對偏差可接受標準(2.87%),這種偏差幅度在臨床上可以接受。結論在更換Cfas批號前後LDH的兩次檢測結果具有一緻性,新批號Cfas性能驗證通過。
목적:이유산탈경매(LDH)위례,험증라씨신비호자동생화분석계통교준품(Cfas)적검측성능。방법재라씨Cobas C501전자동생화분석의상,사용20빈신선환자혈청양본,우Cfas비호경환전후분별검측LDH。채용Bland‐Altman산점도방법,용Medcalc12.7.0통계학연건분석검측결과。결과산점도중,유19개점위우일치성계한(LoA)범위내,초과소유점적95%;LDH량차측정결과차치균수부위-0.2 U/L ,여차치균수위0적선비상접근;LDH량차측량결과최대차치위8U/L,최대비대편차위2.48%,소우비대편차가접수표준(2.87%),저충편차폭도재림상상가이접수。결론재경환Cfas비호전후LDH적량차검측결과구유일치성,신비호Cfas성능험증통과。
Objective To verify the performance of calibrator with new batch number for automatic biochemi‐cal analysis systems (Cfas), using lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) as an example .Methods LDH of twenty serum samples were detected by Roche Cobas C501 automatic biochemical analyzer before and after replacement of calibrator with new batch number .The detection results were analyzed by Bland‐Altman analysis method and Medcalc 12 .7 .0 software .Results According to the Bland‐Altman scatter diagram, a total of 19 dots were within limits of agreement (LoA), accounting for more than 95% of all dots .The mean value of difference between the results of twice detection was only -0 .2 U/L, which was very closed to zero, and the maximum difference was 8 U/L .The largest comparabil‐ity deviation (2 .48% ) was less than the comparability standard deviation(2 .87% ), which was clinically acceptable . Conclusion The detectable results of LDH before and after replacement of calibrator with new batch number could be in accordance, indicating the performance of the calibrator with new batch numbe might be acceptable .