Objective To compare the effects of Logit-log4P and Spline function calibration methods on Determination of ApoA1, ApoB. Methods Determination of Logit-log4P function and Spline function calibration methods for known concentration of reference material , make accuracy analysis of two calibration methods; Determination of ApoA1 of 38 serum samples (range 40-220mg/dl), ApoB of 40 serum samples (range20-220mg/dl), make comparison analysis and correlation analysis between the two calibration methods. Results For ApoA1, samples are divided into 3 groups according to the concentration: 40-100 mg/dl,100-150 mg/dl, 150-220 mg/dl, Logit-log4P calibration results were as follows: 71.86 ± 17.15,121.38 ± 14.11,161.88 ± 21.47, Spline calibration results were as follows: 69.57 ± 16.40,121.56 ± 17.02,170.63 ± 22.92, for each group results ,analysis by t test, the P values were as follows: 0.001,0.845,0.000, the overall analysis of 38 samples by t test, the P value was 0.200. For ApoB, samples were divided into 3 groups according to the concentration: 20-80mg/dl, 80-140mg/dl, 140-220mg/dl, Logit-log4P calibration results were as follows: 47 ± 15.75,105.32 ± 19.84,174.33 ± 23.86, Spline calibration results were as follows: 48.47 ± 16.91,108.05 ± 18.94,175.00 ± 21.76, for each group results ,analysis by t test, the P values were as follows:0.019,0.003,0.666, the overall analysis of 40 samples by t test, the P value was 0.000. Conclusion Two calibration methods have better accuracy. Determination of serum samples on different concentration gradient: ApoA1, at low and high concentrations, there was statistical difference between two methods (P<0.05), at intermediate concentration, two methods showed no statistical difference (P>0.05) ,the overall analysis of 38 samples, two methods showed no statistical difference (P>0.05). ApoB, at low and intermediate concentrations, there was statistical difference between two methods (P<0.05), at high concentrations, two methods showed no statistical difference (P>0.05) , the overall analysis of 40 samples, there was statistical difference between two methods (P<0.05). Results of Logit-log4P were generally lower than that of Spline calibration method.

目的:为AVL988-3电解质分析仪配制电解质试剂.方法:参考其他文献,自配电解质试剂,并做方法学评价.结果:自配试剂与原装试剂的各离子浓度比较,结果无显著性差异.自配试剂测定定值质控血清批内CV:Na、K、Cl分别为0.39%、0.75%、0.40%,批内相对偏倚:Na、K、Cl分别为0.19%、0.25%、-0.06%;批间CV:Na、K、Cl分别为0.40%、1.00%、0.42%,批间相对偏倚:Na、K、Cl分别为0.14%、0.25%、0.10%.可见自配试剂具有较好的精密度和准确度.两试剂对不同浓度梯度Na、K、Cl的测定结果显示,不论分组分析还是整体分析,经配对样本t检验,均无显著性差异(P>0.05),两试剂测定结果高度相关.结论:自配试剂可以代替原装试剂.

Objective To investigate the distribution and drug resistance of pathogenic bacteria detected from intensive care units(ICU) during the last two years in our hospital.Methods Species identification and antibiotic resistance tests were performed by the VITEK automicroscan systems.Results Totally 2720 pathogenic bacteria were isolated.Gram-negative bacteria remained the more frequent pathogens than Gram-positive bacteria.The most common Gram-negative bacteria causing ICU infections was was P.aeruginosa,followed by A.baumanni,Escherichia,K.oxytoca,K.peumoniae among the isolates.The dominant Gram-positive pathogenic bacteria causing ICU infections were Staphylococcus and Enterococcus.The dominant Gram-negative pathogenic bacteria were sensitive to Cefoperazone/Sulbactam,and were sensitive to imipenem and meropenem.While resistant to ticarcillin,cephalothin,piperacillin and amoxicillin.The resistance rate of Gram-positive pathogenic bacteria to penicillin was 100%,and comparatively sensitive to vancomycin and quinupristin/dalfopristin,and resistant against various other antibiotics.Conclusion The most pathogenic bacteria isolated from ICU were Gram-negative bacteria.Drug resistance of isolated pathogenic bacteria from ICU is a serious problem.Monitoring the change of pathogen and the trends of antimicrobial is very important in guiding the clinical administration of drugs.

目的:比较2,4-二氯苯胺重氮法(DCA)和钒酸盐氧化法检测血清结合胆红素的结果。方法:根据NCCLS(EP6-P)评价方案,评估两种方法的相关性和偏倚。结果:两种方法的检测结果相关性良好(r=0.9985),Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ组检测结果无差异,Ⅳ组结果有差异。结论:应建立与方法学相对应的血清结合胆红素参考值范围。

[目的]探讨HITACHI 7080全自动生化仪电解质试剂配制问题.[方法]将自配电解质试剂的理化性质、精密度、准确度与原装电解质试剂进行对比分析.[结果]自配试剂与原装试剂理化性质一致,采用自配试剂连续20 d测定朗道(RAN-DOX)质控血清LEVEL2和LEVEL3,其CV均＜5%;20份病人标本用自配试剂与原配试剂测定对比,r＞0.97,两种结果呈高度正相关.[结论]自配HITACHI7080全自动生化仪电解质试剂可以代替原装试剂.