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


     

Clinical Chemistry 34: 1629-1632, 1988;
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McMillan, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Warnick, G. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McMillan, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Warnick, G. R.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 34, 1629-1632, Copyright © 1988 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Interlaboratory proficiency survey of cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol measurement [published erratum appears in Clin Chem 1988 Nov;34(11):2370]

TA McMillan and GR Warnick
Northwest Lipid Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle 98104.

We conducted a proficiency survey of cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol analysis in local clinical laboratories to determine whether increased national emphasis on cholesterol measurement had resulted in changes in performance from previous surveys. Sets of frozen aliquots of plasma and HDL supernate pools were sent to nine laboratories for analysis; results were compared with Northwest Lipid Research Center values, and relationships were determined by linear regression. Of all the cholesterol measurements, 81% were considered acceptable (i.e., within 9% of the NWLRC value), and 61% of the HDL cholesterol measurements were considered acceptable (within 50 mg/L of NWLRC values). These data represented no improvement over previous surveys. Workload had increased significantly: 79% for cholesterol and 284% for HDL cholesterol. On a bias plot, six of the laboratories demonstrated inaccuracy greater than the +/- 3% recommendation within the critical range of 2000-2400 mg/L for total cholesterol. For HDL cholesterol, two laboratories demonstrated bias greater than 10% at the critical point of 350 mg/L, with three additional laboratories displaying strong bias outside the decision point. The survey results indicate that apparently further improvements must be made for laboratories to achieve acceptable performance in cholesterol analysis.


The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
G. R. Warnick, M. Nauck, and N. Rifai
Evolution of Methods for Measurement of HDL-Cholesterol: From Ultracentrifugation to Homogeneous Assays
Clin. Chem., September 1, 2001; 47(9): 1579 - 1596.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1988 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.