Evaluation of three methods for the measurement of urea nitrogen in serum as used on six instruments
The authors compared three urea nitrogen methods using six instruments: (1) the diacetyl monoxime method used with a continuous flow analyzer Sequential Multiple Analyzer Model 4 + 2; (2) the diacetyl monoxime method used with an older continuous flow analyzer (Sequential Multiple Analyzer Model 6/6...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of clinical pathology 1980-03, Vol.73 (3), p.362-368 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | The authors compared three urea nitrogen methods using six instruments: (1) the diacetyl monoxime method used with a continuous flow analyzer Sequential Multiple Analyzer Model 4 + 2; (2) the diacetyl monoxime method used with an older continuous flow analyzer (Sequential Multiple Analyzer Model 6/60; (3) the diacetyl monoxime method used with a third continuous flow system, AutoAnalyzer Model I; (4) the urease-conductivity method performed on the Beckman System I; (5) the urease-glutamate dehydrogenase method performed on the DuPont Automatic Clinical Analyzer; (6) the urease-glutamate dehydrogenase method done on a centrifugal analyzer, CentrifiChem. We evaluated each method for the following: (1) within-run precision; (2) between-day precision; (3) linearity of the relationship between concentration and instrument output; (4) specificity; (5) carry-over; (6) comparison of urea nitrogen values for samples from patients. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0002-9173 1943-7722 |
DOI: | 10.1093/ajcp/73.3.362 |