检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
出 处:《检验医学与临床》2011年第19期2319-2319,2321,共2页Laboratory Medicine and Clinic
摘 要:目的对两种不同方法检测甲胎蛋白(AFP)与癌胚抗原(CEA)的重复性及检测结果的差异进行方法学对比和偏倚评估,探讨不同分析方法检测结果是否具有可比性及偏倚是否在允许范围内。方法以可溯源的罗氏电化学发光法检测结果为比较方法,以时间分辨法检测结果为实验方法。结果经F检验,两种仪器检测甲胎蛋白与癌胚抗原的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),偏倚均在允许范围。结论两种仪器性能稳定,重复性佳,相关性良好,结果具有可比性,在临床中可同时或交替使用。Objective To compare the repeatability,test result and bias estimation of two methods on detection of alpha-fetoprotein(AFP) and carcinoembryonic antigen(CEA),and explore whether the test results of different analysis methods are comparable and the bias is within the allowable range.Methods We took the traceable Roche electrochemiluminescence detection method for comparing the results of time-resolved detection of the experimental method.Results The result of two detection equipments on AFP and CEA analyzed by the F test was not significantly different(P0.05),with the allowable bias.Conclusion The two kinds of instruments have good performance and stability,good reproducibility and correlation,which could be used simultaneously or alternatively in clinic.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:18.217.248.230