4.7 Article

Effect of Dried Blood Spot Quality on Newborn Screening Analyte Concentrations and Recommendations for Minimum Acceptance Criteria for Sample Analysis

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 62, 期 3, 页码 466-475

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2015.247668

关键词

-

资金

  1. Screening Division at Public Health Wales

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The analysis of dried blood spots has been used routinely for newborn screening since the early 1970s, and the number of disorders screened has expanded substantially in recent years. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding minimum blood spot quality acceptance criteria for sample analysis. METHODS: Blood pools were spiked with phenylalanine, tyrosine, leucine, methionine, octanoylcarnitine, decanoylcarnitine, isovalerylcarnitine, glutarylcarnitine, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and immunoreactive trypsinogen to concentrations at the analytical cutoffs used in UK screening protocols. We evaluated the effect of sample volume applied to the card (10, 20, 50, 75, and 100 mu L), punch location (central vs peripheral), and sample quality (double layering, applying blood to both sides of the filter paper, multispotting, applying insufficient sample, and compressing the sample after application). RESULTS: Compression of blood spots produced significantly lower results (14%-44%) for all analytes measured (P < 0.001). Smaller blood spots produced significantly lower results (15%-24% for 10-mu L vs 50-mu L sample size) for all analytes at all concentrations measured (P < 0.001). Results obtained from peripheral punches were higher than those from a central punch, although this did not reach statistical significance for all analytes. Insufficient and multispotted samples demonstrated heterogeneous results. CONCLUSIONS: All blood spots containing <= 20 mu L (blood spot diameter <8 mm), those in which blood has not fully penetrated the filter paper, and all samples with evidence of compression should be rejected, since there is a risk of producing false-negative results. (C) 2015 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据