Clinical Chemistry
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 21: 1107-1112, 1975;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Passey, R.
Right arrow Articles by Fuller, J. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Passey, R.
Right arrow Articles by Fuller, J. B.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 21, 1107-1112, Copyright © 1975 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Evaluation of the Beckman "System TR Enzyme Analyzer"

Richard Passey 1, Ronald L. Gillum 1, Mary Louise Giles 1, and John B. Fuller 1

1 Clinical Laboratories, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Tex. 77550.

We evaluated 16 claims made by Beckman Instruments, Inc. for its Enzyme Analyzer (System TR), under a rigid written protocol for the Product Evaluation Subcommittee of the Standards Committee of the College of American Pathologists. We found the following to be within the company's specifications: (a) accuracy and precision of the temperature control; (b) accuracy and precision of the sample and reagent pipets; (c) instrument precision, both within-run and between-day; (d) carry-over from a sample with activity > 1000 U/liter; (e) instrument-to-instrument variation; (f) analytical linearity; (g) analysis time; (h) correlation of the instrumentprinted answer with the activity calculated manually from a strip-chart recorder; (i) precision of the instrument's built-in electronic "standard"; (j) effectiveness of the over-range indicators; and (k) correlation between results of these enzyme assay methods and those for kinetic methods used in our laboratory. The instrument performed well.


Key Words: analytical error • enzyme activity • "kit" method • analytical system

Submitted on December 23, 1974
Accepted on April 21, 1975






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1975 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.