Clinical Chemistry Link to Randox Laboratories Web Site
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 34: 131-135, 1988;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kroll, M. H.
Right arrow Articles by Elin, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kroll, M. H.
Right arrow Articles by Elin, R. J.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 34, 131-135, Copyright © 1988 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Bias between enzymatic methods and the reference method for cholesterol

MH Kroll, H Lindsey, J Greene, C Sliva, A Hainline Jr and RJ Elin
Clinical Pathology Department, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892.

Assaying 312 serum samples, we compared four enzymatic methods for serum cholesterol with the Reference Method (modified Abell-Kendall) of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The means for the aca, TDx, and SMAC methods (2.27, 2.27, and 2.24 g/L, respectively) were significantly higher (P less than 0.05) than those of the Reference Method and the RA-1000 method (2.19 and 2.18 g/L, respectively). The biased methods had positive proportional and (or) systematic biases. Results with these methods were 2.6% to 4.9% higher than with the Reference Method. The assigned concentrations of cholesterol in the calibration materials for the SMAC and aca agreed with those obtained by the Reference Method, but were lower for the TDx and higher for the RA-1000. These findings document positive biases for cholesterol with three enzymatic methods and suggest that misassignment of calibrators is not primarily responsible for the biases found with the aca and SMAC. It may, however, to be a significant factor for the TDx.


The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
M. H. Kroll and R. Chesler
The Nonlinearity Seen for LDL-Cholesterol with Lyophilized Material Is a Matrix Effect
Clin. Chem., August 1, 1998; 44(8): 1770 - 1771.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1988 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.