Literature DB >> 3345476

Desktop analysers: quality of results obtained by medical office personnel.

A A Nanji1, R Poon, I Hinberg.   

Abstract

We carried out a study to evaluate the quality of results obtained by 14 nontechnical medical office personnel using desktop analysers. The instruments evaluated were the Reflotron analyser, the Seralyzer, the Vision analyser and the DT60 analyser. For precision studies low and high concentrations of control materials were used. For correlation studies the results obtained by the office personnel were compared with those obtained by a trained technologist. The coefficient of variation for the office personnel ranged from 3.0% to 8.1% with the Reflotron analyser, from 6.3% to 26.5% with the Seralyzer, from 1.0% to 4.1% with the Vision analyser and from 1.4% to 16.7% with the DT60 analyser. The correlation coefficient ranged from 0.970 to 0.997 with the Reflotron analyser, from 0.779 to 0.997 with the Seralyzer, from 0.975 to 0.998 with the Vision analyser and from 0.963 to 0.995 with the DT60 analyser. The proportion of results obtained by the office personnel that differed by more than 10% from those obtained by the technologist was 7% with the Reflotron analyser, 42% with the Seralyzer, 2% with the Vision analyser and 21% with the DT60 analyser. The instruments whose operation involves the least number of steps gave the most reliable results in the hands of medical office personnel.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3345476      PMCID: PMC1267699     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  7 in total

1.  Hemoglobin, electrolytes, and other major clinical laboratory analytes as measured with a physician's office analyzer, the Kodak DT60.

Authors:  J M Hicks; M Iosefsohn
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 8.327

2.  Analytical performance of the Abbott Vision System.

Authors:  R H Ng; M Altaffer; B E Statland
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  1986-07       Impact factor: 8.327

3.  Why office testing?

Authors:  B E Statland; M A Moskowitz
Journal:  Clin Lab Med       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 1.935

4.  Selecting instrumentation for physician's office testing.

Authors:  R H Ng
Journal:  Clin Lab Med       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 1.935

5.  Laboratory test analysis near the patient. Opportunities for improved clinical diagnosis and management.

Authors:  R Belsey; D Baer; D Sewell
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1986-02-14       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Evaluation of the Boehringer Mannheim "Reflotron" analyzer.

Authors:  A A Nanji; F Sincennes; R Poon; I Hinberg
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 8.327

7.  Regulation of physicians' office laboratories. The Idaho experience.

Authors:  R Crawley; R Belsey; D Brock; D M Baer
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1986-01-17       Impact factor: 56.272

  7 in total
  3 in total

Review 1.  Systematic review of near patient test evaluations in primary care.

Authors:  B C Delaney; C J Hyde; R J McManus; S Wilson; D A Fitzmaurice; S Jowett; R Tobias; G H Thorpe; F D Hobbs
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-09-25

2.  A comparison of results of a national cholesterol and blood pressure screening with the NHANES II Study: implications for further emphasis on reducing cardiovascular risk among Americans.

Authors:  F W Fridinger; A W Jackson; J Andresen
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  1992-08

3.  Detecting Elevated Cholesterol Levels: Part 1: How accurate is the Reflotron?

Authors:  H L Reimer; R W Elford; S Shumak
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 3.275

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.