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


     

Clinical Chemistry 28: 2098-2100, 1982;
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 Elin, R. J.
Right arrow Articles by Chesler, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Elin, R. J.
Right arrow Articles by Chesler, R.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 28, 2098-2100, Copyright © 1982 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Four methods for determining uric acid compared with a candidate reference method

RJ Elin, E Johnson and R Chesler

Uric acid as measured in serum by three different uricase (EC 1.7.3.3) methods (aca, Ektachem, and SMAC) and by the SMAC method with phosphotungstic acid was compared with a candidate Reference Method for uric acid. Serum specimens from 83 patients (uric acid concentrations, 19 to 141 mg/L) were analyzed by all five methods. Results were compared by using linear regression analysis, and the mean difference between results by the candidate Reference Method and the four other methods was calculated. Compared with the candidate Reference Method, the aca method gave the smallest deviation from zero for the intercept and the smallest mean difference, and the SMAC phosphotungstic acid method showed a slope closest to unity. The SMAC uricase method had the largest intercept and greatest deviation of the slope from unity.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1982 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.