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


     

Clinical Chemistry 36: 780-783, 1990;
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 Cook, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Knoblock, E. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cook, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Knoblock, E. C.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 36, 780-783, Copyright © 1990 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Accuracy and precision of methods for theophylline measurement in physicians' offices

JD Cook, GE Platoff, TR Koch and EC Knoblock
Department of Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore 21201.

We tested the accuracy and precision of five theophylline methods intended for use in physicians' offices. The Syntex AccuLevel, Ames Seralyzer, and 3M Diagnostics TheoFAST methods were less reproducible (CVs 6.3% to 9.2%) than the Abbott Vision and Kodak DT-60 (CVs 2.2% to 3.3%). Caffeine interfered with the Vision, Seralyzer, and AccuLevel methods, and theobromine interfered with the Vision, Seralyzer, and TheoFAST methods. Only the DT-60 method was free from interference from any of the 24 compounds tested. Results by all methods correlated well with those by the HPLC comparison method (Clin Chem 1981;27:1931-3) and by the Abbott TDx method for assay of 100 serum (or, when appropriate, paired whole-blood) samples. The frequency of sample results differing from the comparison method by greater than 2.0 mg/L was as follows: TDx, 11%; Vision (serum), 12%; Vision (whole blood), 18%; DT-60, 14%; AccuLevel, 18%; Seralyzer, 25%; and TheoFAST, 31%. The Kodak DT-60 method was the most nearly accurate and precise among these physician's office methods. Some physician's office methods for theophylline analysis are not adequate to guide dosage adjustments.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1990 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.