2008Zhonghua jianyan yixue zazhiRequires access

Harmonization of the results of automated coagulation tests with different analyzers

Cunliang Yan, Liming Peng, Hai-xiong Huang

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Objective To investigate the harmonization of results of Prothrombin time(PT),International Normalized Ratio(INR),activated partial thromboplastin time(APTT),fibrinogen(FIB)and thrombin time(TT)with different coagulation analyzers in different or sanle clinical laboratory.Methods PT,INR,Am,FIB and TT for the same quality control material were detected with 14 different coagulation analyzers,which are distributed in 12 clinical laboratories and classified into A,B and C group.MeaJlwhile,PT,INR,APTT,FIB of 139 samples were detected with two different coagulation aJlalyzers in the same laboratory.Results There was no significant difference for detection of level 3 of both INR and TT among the three group analyzers(P>0.05),but there was significant difference for other tests (P<0.05).The comparison between groups showed that there was high percentage(66.7%)of consistency for detection of INR,FIB-C and TT between group B and C.The results of two different coagulation analvzers ( ACL Futura and CA 510)in same laboratory showed that there was no significant difference(P>0.05)for detection of PT,INR,PT-FIB and FIB-C between them,and there was good eorrelation for them in detecting PT,INR,APTT,PT-FIB and FIB-C(r>0.975).Analysis of bias showed that the bias of PT,INR,PT-FIB and FIBC between the two different coagulation analyzers was acceptable according to CLIA'88.Conclusion There are good agreement for the results between different coagulation analyzers based upon the similar Drinciple in coagulation analysis. Key words: Blood coagulation tests; Diagnostic equipment;  Evaluation studies

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Objective To investigate the harmonization of results of Prothrombin time(PT),International Normalized Ratio(INR),activated partial thromboplastin time(APTT),fibrinogen(FIB)and thrombin time(TT)with different coagulation analyzers in different or sanle clinical laboratory.Methods PT,INR,Am,FIB and TT for the same quality control material were detected with 14 different coagulation analyzers,which are distributed in 12 clinical laboratories and classified into A,B and C group.MeaJlwhile,PT,INR,APTT,FIB of 139 samples were detected with two different coagulation aJlalyzers in the same laboratory.Results There was no significant difference for detection of level 3 of both INR and TT among the three group analyzers(P>0.05),but there was significant difference for other tests (P<0.05).The comparison between groups showed that there was high percentage(66.7%)of consistency for detection of INR,FIB-C and TT between group B and C.The results of two different coagulation analvzers ( ACL Futura and CA 510)in same laboratory showed that there was no significant difference(P>0.05)for detection of PT,INR,PT-FIB and FIB-C between them,and there was good eorrelation for them in detecting PT,INR,APTT,PT-FIB and FIB-C(r>0.975).Analysis of bias showed that the bias of PT,INR,PT-FIB and FIBC between the two different coagulation analyzers was acceptable according to CLIA'88.Conclusion There are good agreement for the results between different coagulation analyzers based upon the similar Drinciple in coagulation analysis. Key words: Blood coagulation tests; Diagnostic equipment;  Evaluation studies

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Objective To investigate the harmonization of results of Prothrombin time(PT),International Normalized Ratio(INR),activated partial thromboplastin time(APTT),fibrinogen(FIB)and thrombin time(TT)with different coagulation analyzers in different or sanle clinical laboratory.Methods PT,INR,Am,FIB and TT for the same quality control material were detected with 14 different coagulation analyzers,which are distributed in 12 clinical laboratories and classified into A,B and C group.MeaJlwhile,PT,INR,APTT,FIB of 139 samples were detected with two different coagulation aJlalyzers in the same laboratory.Results There was no significant difference for detection of level 3 of both INR and TT among the three group analyzers(P>0.05),but there was significant difference for other tests (P<0.05).The comparison between groups showed that there was high percentage(66.7%)of consistency for detection of INR,FIB-C and TT between group B and C.The results of two different coagulation analvzers ( ACL Futura and CA 510)in same laboratory showed that there was no significant difference(P>0.05)for detection of PT,INR,PT-FIB and FIB-C between them,and there was good eorrelation for them in detecting PT,INR,APTT,PT-FIB and FIB-C(r>0.975).Analysis of bias showed that the bias of PT,INR,PT-FIB and FIBC between the two different coagulation analyzers was acceptable according to CLIA'88.Conclusion There are good agreement for the results between different coagulation analyzers based upon the similar Drinciple in coagulation analysis. Key words: Blood coagulation tests; Diagnostic equipment;  Evaluation studies

Key concepts: Prothrombin time, Partial thromboplastin time, Fibrinogen, Coagulation testing, Coagulation, Significant difference, Thrombin time, Internal medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Harmonization of the results of automated coagulation tests with different analyzers — Research Paper | ScholarLens