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


     

Clinical Chemistry 30: 129-131, 1984;
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 Gray, B. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Elin, R. J.
Right arrow Articles by Gray, B. A.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 30, 129-131, Copyright © 1984 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Liquid and lyophilized quality-control materials compared for use in continuous-flow analysis

RJ Elin and BA Gray

Using a Technicon SMAC continuous-flow instrument, we compared a liquid quality-control material ("Decision level 3," Beckman) with two different lyophilized quality-control materials. The variances for 19 analytes in the three materials were significantly greater for Decision than for the Ortho Abnormal and the Omega II lyophilized control sera (p less than 0.00001 for each comparison by the omnibus test). The imprecision for Decision was not due to incomplete mixing or carryover. The viscosity of Decision, however, was more than twice that of the two lyophilized control sera or of pooled human serum.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1984 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.