三种线性评价方法的比较及在生化检验中的应用  

Comparison of Three Linearity Evaluation Methods and Its Application in Clinical Biochemistry

作　　者：吴新忠[1] 庄俊华[1] 林莉[1] 潘婉仪[1] 黄宪章[1] 

机构地区：[1]广东省中医院检验科,广州510120

出　　处：《现代检验医学杂志》2009年第3期65-67,共3页Journal of Modern Laboratory Medicine

基　　金：国家科技支撑计划课题资助（2006BA114B00）.

摘　　要：目的探讨CAP—IRC，EP6-A和改良的Doumas等三种线性评价方法的区别和适用性及在生化检验中的应用。方法采用CAP—IRC，EP6-A，改良的Doumas等三种方法对33个临床化学检验项目进行线性评价，比较评价结果的异同。结果在33个临床化学检验项目中，EP6-A方法有22个可直接判断为线性，7个为临床可接受线性，4个为非线性；CAP—IRC方法有14个为直接线性，18个为可接受线性，1个为非线性；改良的Doumas方法有18个为线性，15个为非线性。结论EP6-A方法客观，更适用于临床，是目前较理想的线性评价方法。Objective To explore difference and adaptivity of linearity evaluation with three methods. Methods To evaluate the linearity of 33 clinical chemistry items with CAP-IRC,EP6-A and modified Doumas method. Results In EP6-A method, 22 of 33 items were evaluated direct linearity, 7 items were clinical acceptable linearity, 4 items were nonlinearity. In CAP-IRC method, 14 of 33 items were linearity, 18 items were clinical acceptable linearity, 1 item was nonlinearity. In modified Doumas method, 18 of 33 items were linearity, 15 items were nonlinearity. Conclusion EP6-A linearity evaluation method is more objective and more suitable to clinical biochemistry.

关 键 词：CAP—IRC EP6-A 改良的Doumas方法 线性评价 

分 类 号：R446.112[医药卫生—诊断学]