4.7 Article

Commutability Assessment of Candidate Reference Materials for Pancreatic α-Amylase

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 64, 期 8, 页码 1193-1202

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2018.289744

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Measurement standardization of the catalytic concentration of alpha-amylase in serum is based on 3 pillars: the primary reference measurement procedure (PRMP), reference laboratories, and suitable certified reference materials (CRMs). Commutability is a prerequisite when using a CRM for calibration and trueness control of routine methods or for value transfer from the PRMP to end-user calibrators of routine methods through a calibration hierarchy. METHODS: Weperformed a commutability study with 30 serum pools and 5 candidate reference materials (RMs) for pancreatic alpha-amylase using an automated version of the PRMP and 5 different routine methods. Four candidate RMs had an artificial matrix, each with a different composition, and 1 candidate RM was based on human serum. Data were analyzed according to a linear regression analysis with prediction interval as described in the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guideline EP30-A and a difference in bias analysis as described in the recommendations of the IFCC Working Group on Commutability. RESULTS: The commutability profile of the 4 candidate RMs with an artificial matrix was variable. Only 1 candidate RM, with human serum albumin in the matrix, showed a good profile like that of the candidate RM based on serum. The comparison of both commutability assessment approaches indicated some differences because of inconclusive results for the difference in bias approach, suggesting a large uncertainty on the commutability assessment. CONCLUSIONS: A CRM for pancreatic amylase in an artificial matrix can be commutable for routine methods using the same substrate as the PRMP, but the matrix composition is crucial. (C) 2018 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