1974
DOI: 10.1177/000456327401100164
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Revised Scheme for the Evaluation of Automatic Instruments for Use in Clinical Chemistry

Abstract: A revised scheme is described for evaluating automatic instruments used in clinical chemistry. Procedures are outlined for the assessment of mechanical and electrical features, and measurement of the accuracy and precision of individual units. Methods are given for the measurement of analytical precision, carryover, cross-contamination, accuracy, and linearity. The safety of equipment and methods of assessing costs are discussed, and the importance of subjective features is noted. The general principles of the… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
73
0
6

Year Published

1977
1977
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 127 publications
(82 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
1
73
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…Low 61·3 60·4 0·9 130·1 69·7 0·0129 61·0 60·0 1·0 130·0 70·0 0·0143 61·0 60·2 0·8 128·4 68·2 0·0117 61·3 60·3 1·0 130·1 69·8 0·0143 6O·S S9·4 1·1 129·6 70·2 0·OIS7 MeanK 61·3 S9·9 1·4 130·0 70·1 0·0199 =0·0164 62·1 60·7 1·4 131·6 69·9 0·02OD S9·7 S8·8 0·9 126·1 67·3 0·0134 61·1 S9·7 1·4 128·7 69·0 0·0202 61·4 S9·9 I·S 128·0 68·1 0·0220 carried out in accordance with the method of Broughton et al 7 The results are summarised in Table 3 and show a mean carryover of 1· 6 % for the automated method run at 60 samples per hour with a sample to wash ratio of 5:l. Calibration of the automated method against aqueous chloride standards gave readings approxi- system. Using the method described, precision and accuracy are acceptable and compare well with the coulometric procedure.…”
Section: Number Of Mean Value Standard Results (Mmoljl) Deviationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Low 61·3 60·4 0·9 130·1 69·7 0·0129 61·0 60·0 1·0 130·0 70·0 0·0143 61·0 60·2 0·8 128·4 68·2 0·0117 61·3 60·3 1·0 130·1 69·8 0·0143 6O·S S9·4 1·1 129·6 70·2 0·OIS7 MeanK 61·3 S9·9 1·4 130·0 70·1 0·0199 =0·0164 62·1 60·7 1·4 131·6 69·9 0·02OD S9·7 S8·8 0·9 126·1 67·3 0·0134 61·1 S9·7 1·4 128·7 69·0 0·0202 61·4 S9·9 I·S 128·0 68·1 0·0220 carried out in accordance with the method of Broughton et al 7 The results are summarised in Table 3 and show a mean carryover of 1· 6 % for the automated method run at 60 samples per hour with a sample to wash ratio of 5:l. Calibration of the automated method against aqueous chloride standards gave readings approxi- system. Using the method described, precision and accuracy are acceptable and compare well with the coulometric procedure.…”
Section: Number Of Mean Value Standard Results (Mmoljl) Deviationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Filter papers 9 is prone to imprecision from both over-and under-saturation of the paper, and the step of punching out the paper disc may itself account for a CV of 3 %. 3 10 With the 5 ILl capillary, we obtained a CV of 1· 3 % by filling preweighed capillaries (n = 50) with whole blood and reweighing after wiping off excess blood. The CV was higher 0·7 %) when capiIlaries (n = 50)…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the author's laboratory the sampling .offfuoride-c-oxalated specimens is most speedily and analysis of whole blood or plasma which has previously been diluted I in 20 and are linear up to the value of the highest standard with sampling rates of 6O/h (AAI) and 9O/h (AA2). Carryover, as determined by the procedure described by Broughton et al (1974) was 1.6% and 1.3 % on two separate occasions on the AAI and 1.2%for the AA2 method estimated on one occasion only. Within-batch precision was estimated for each method by analysing sequentially three aqueous glucose solutions and three diluted whole-blood samples in random order until 20 results of each were obtained.…”
Section: Sample Preparationmentioning
confidence: 92%