1974
DOI: 10.1136/jcp.27.6.480
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automated technique for the estimation of fetal haemoglobin

Abstract: An automated alkali denaturation technique which measures fetal haemoglobin is described. This method offers greater speed and a lower standard deviation than comparable manual methods.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1975
1975
1982
1982

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 1 publication
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Additional modifications of this method that have since been proposed include the use of haemolysates in the cyanmethaemoglobin form which avoids errors caused by methaemoglobin and carbonmonoxyhaemoglobin derivatives (Betke et al, 1959) and variation in the optimum wavelength at which the samples are measured (Jonxis and Visser, 1956;Kristoffersen, 1961;Pembrey et al, 1972). Automated assay systems based on this method have also been developed (Cabannes and Schmidt-Beurrier, 1965;Brook et al, 1974). The most common currently used tests are those of Singer et al (1951b) and Betke et al (1959) giving values for the upper limit of normal of 2% and 1% respectively.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additional modifications of this method that have since been proposed include the use of haemolysates in the cyanmethaemoglobin form which avoids errors caused by methaemoglobin and carbonmonoxyhaemoglobin derivatives (Betke et al, 1959) and variation in the optimum wavelength at which the samples are measured (Jonxis and Visser, 1956;Kristoffersen, 1961;Pembrey et al, 1972). Automated assay systems based on this method have also been developed (Cabannes and Schmidt-Beurrier, 1965;Brook et al, 1974). The most common currently used tests are those of Singer et al (1951b) and Betke et al (1959) giving values for the upper limit of normal of 2% and 1% respectively.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%