PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 7127764

A calibration protocol for serum-based secondary standards.

Abstract

In this procedure, tentative calibration values are assigned to secondary standards by analysis of that material with the routinely used instrument calibrated by use of the former lot of material. Aliquots of serum from patients are then analyzed by the routine method and an appropriate calibration method in which primary standards are used. If the patient-sera results by both methods are the same, the assigned calibration value is assumed to be correct; if not, the calibration value of the secondary-standard material is adjusted to produce agreement in patient-sera results between the two methods. Thus, calibration of the routine method is linked via the calibration method to primary standards as the criterion of accuracy. This approach corrects for matrix interference of serum-based secondary standards. All that is expected for the secondary standard to obtain an accurate result for patient sera is to produce an analytical signal (irrespective of the origin of the signal) that is equivalent to the calibration value. Differences were significant between the secondary-standard calibration value we determined by this procedure and that assigned by the manufacturer for bilirubin, calcium, phosphorus, chloride, CO2, creatinine, glucose, sodium, uric acid, and commonly measured enzymes.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W G Miller, D J Rhodes, C J Moore. 1982. A calibration protocol for serum-based secondary standards.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7127764/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Use of the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer for rapid and reproducible molecular typing of Streptococcus pneumoniae.

Restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis is an economic and fast technique for molecular typing but has the drawback of difficulties in accurately sizing DNA fragments and comparing banding patterns on agarose gels. We aimed to improve RFLP for typing of the important human pathogen Streptococcus pneumoniae and to compare the results with the commonly used typing techniques of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and multilocus sequence typing. We designed primers to amplify a noncoding region adjacent to the pneumolysin gene. The PCR product was digested separately with six restriction endonucleases, and the DNA fragments were analyzed using an Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer for accurate sizing. The combined RFLP results for all enzymes allowed us to assign each of the 47 clinical isolates of S. pneumoniae tested to one of 33 RFLP types. RFLP analyzed using the bioanalyzer allowed discrimination between strains similar to that obtained by the more commonly used techniques of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, which discriminated between 34 types, and multilocus sequence typing, which discriminated between 35 types, but more quickly and with less expense. RFLP of a noncoding region using the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer could be a useful addition to the molecular typing techniques in current use for S. pneumoniae, especially as a first screen of a local population.

Autoanalysis↗

A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System.

We compared the performance of the ThinPrep (TP) Imaging System (TIS) with manual reading of TP slides (TPM) and with manual reading of the paired conventional Pap smear (PS) in terms of sensitivity for and positive predictive value (PPV) of high-grade disease and productivity. The study consisted of 11,416 routine PS and paired TP slides as well as 103 confirmed abnormal TP slides. In terms of sensitivity for the detection of biopsy-confirmed high-grade disease, overall there was no statistically significant difference between TIS-screened TP (TPI) and TPM (81.1% vs. 86.8%). For the routine cases, TPI was significantly more sensitive than PS (73.4% vs. 57.8%). In terms of PPVs for the cytologic prediction of high-grade disease, there was no statistically, significant difference among TPI, TPM, and PS (75.6%, 73.9%, and 84.6%). For cytologic reports of possible high-grade disease, the PPVs were equivalent for TPI (45.0%) and TPM (37.0%) and there was no significant difference in PPVs between TPI and PS (61.3%). For TP slides, TIS screening showed a 27% productivity gain when compared with manual screening and a 54% productivity gain when compared with manual screening of PS slides. Use of TIS showed productivity benefits when compared with TPM and both productivity and sensitivity benefits over use of PS.

Autoanalysis↗