Clinical Chemistry Link to Randox Laboratories Web Site
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Clinical Chemistry 24: 223-226, 1978;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
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 Brown, P.
Right arrow Articles by Patterson, M. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Brown, P.
Right arrow Articles by Patterson, M. C.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 24, 223-226, Copyright © 1978 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Use of a programmable calculator in processing and interpreting serum cholinesterase phenotypes

P Brown, MJ McQueen and MC Patterson

Cholinesterase phenotyping is done at 25 degrees C with use of benzoylcholine as substrate and dibucaine, fluoride, chloride, and succinyldicholine as inhibitors. We wrote a diagnostic program in modified BASIC language for the processing and interpretation of these cholinesterase phenotypes. We used the HP 9830A calculator. The diagnostic aspect of the program uses 646 words, a further 86 words being used to run this program. The traditional and the programmed reporting procedures were duplicated for 296 consecutive patients, with no case of disagreement between the two reporting methods as to the appropriate phenotype. The programmed system requested nine repeat analyses more than did the traditional method. Seven of these were due to the tight limits set in the program for the fluoride inhibitor numbers. These tight limits were set to ensure that there was as limited an overlap as possible between the phenotypes E1uE1u and E1uE1f. The remaining two repeats were due to the restrictions placed on the succinyldicholine inhibitor numbers that would be acceptable before a patient was designated as having the relatively rare phenotype, E1aE1f.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1978 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.