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


     

Clinical Chemistry 46: 1024-1028, 2000;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
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 Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Verebey, K.
Right arrow Articles by Ash, O. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Verebey, K.
Right arrow Articles by Ash, O. K.
Related Collections
Right arrow Laboratory Management
Right arrow Pediatric Clinical Chemistry
Right arrow Drug Monitoring and Toxicology
(Clinical Chemistry. 2000;46:1024-1028.)
© 2000 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Letters

Filter Paper-collected Blood Lead Testing in Children

Karl Verebey1,2

1 Leadtech Corporation, One Marine Plaza, North Bergen, NJ 07047, and,
2 SUNY Health Science Center, Brooklyn, NY, Fax 201-868-3994, E-mail Leadtech@prodigy.net


To the Editor

The Editorial "Filter Paper Lead Testing" by Moyer et al. (1) repeats previously raised hypothetical and unsubstantiated claims on filter paper (FP collection-based) blood lead testing (1)(2)(3)(4). All the theoretical charges were appropriately rebutted in the past based on published evidence (5)(6)(7)(8)(9). The peer-reviewed scientific literature supports the clinical usefulness of FP-collected blood samples in childhood lead poisoning screenings (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19).

The Editorial’s authors (1) used references that do not support their statements: one of the references lacks entirely the topic of lead testing for which it was used. Worse yet, available references were omitted from the Editorial that support FP collection-based methods. The following comments and references attempt to correct these mistakes and provide accurate documentation from the scientific literature on FP.

Reference 9 in the Editorial (14) is cited for support of "low extraction recoveries" of lead from FP. This study is based on a method that is a direct analysis that does not require an extraction (14). The same reference is cited to support the statements that contamination occurs as a result of "high and variable lead content of the FP or by contamination encountered in the sampling process". The reference did not address FP blank lead concentration issues or that contamination caused any unusual problems during sample collection.

The wrong volume and page numbers are cited for reference 8 in the Editorial (18). The work of Cernik (18) and O’Broin et al. (20) are used to support "nonreproducibility of blood spotting because of differences in . . . [Full Text of this Article]


References

Thomas P. Moyer3,a, David E. Nixon3 and Owen K. Ash4

3 Department of Laboratory Medicine, and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905

4 Department of Pathology, University of Utah/ARUP Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT 84108
a Author for correspondence.


To the Editor:


References






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2000 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.