1985
DOI: 10.1016/0009-8981(85)90132-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Study of a myoglobin test in patients hospitalized for suspected myocardial infarction

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

1988
1988
1998
1998

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 11 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The differences could be attributed to the type of assays, that is, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) vcrsus radioimmunoassay (RIA), immunoagglutination, nephelometric), the use of nionoclonal antibody versus polyclonal antibody or differences inherent in the populations studied. The average Mb peak in the AMI group exceeded those of the non-AM1 and control groups by a factor of [8][9], confirming previous reports (3,4,16), but appearing slightly higher than others (8,9,22,23). These differences could be due to computational factors, i.e., peak values versus the mean of consecutive samples, or the mean of abovenormal Mb levels, or, more likely, due to the type of AMI, extension of myocardial damage or its complications (24)(25)(26).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…The differences could be attributed to the type of assays, that is, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) vcrsus radioimmunoassay (RIA), immunoagglutination, nephelometric), the use of nionoclonal antibody versus polyclonal antibody or differences inherent in the populations studied. The average Mb peak in the AMI group exceeded those of the non-AM1 and control groups by a factor of [8][9], confirming previous reports (3,4,16), but appearing slightly higher than others (8,9,22,23). These differences could be due to computational factors, i.e., peak values versus the mean of consecutive samples, or the mean of abovenormal Mb levels, or, more likely, due to the type of AMI, extension of myocardial damage or its complications (24)(25)(26).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%