1967
DOI: 10.1016/s0065-2423(08)60112-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quality Control in Routine Clinical Chemistry

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
13
0
1

Year Published

1969
1969
2006
2006

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 81 publications
0
13
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The mean (SD) activity was 954 (272) U/L, with a nonparametric 95% range of 505-1539 U/L. Because the method was changed from measurement of absorbance with a spectrophotometer to use of a microtiter plate reader during the course of the study, we examined the running mean of the results across time and also calculated and graphed the cumulative sum of the differences from the mean (cusum) (34 ). This plot (see Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The mean (SD) activity was 954 (272) U/L, with a nonparametric 95% range of 505-1539 U/L. Because the method was changed from measurement of absorbance with a spectrophotometer to use of a microtiter plate reader during the course of the study, we examined the running mean of the results across time and also calculated and graphed the cumulative sum of the differences from the mean (cusum) (34 ). This plot (see Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 6 summarises the precision for each method. The within-batch precision (coefficient of variation, CV) was determined by the difference between duplicate specimens as described by Whitby et al (1967). Overall precision was determined from repeated observations on the same specimen assayed at different times during the period of this investigation.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Overall precision was determined from repeated observations on the same specimen assayed at different times during the period of this investigation. The CV for non-paired data was calculated in the usual manner (Whitby et al, 1967).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Jeder dieser Teilschritte ist mit mehr oder weniger großen Fehlern behaftet. Hier dürften einige der Gründe dafür liegen, daß die Präzision der Analysenergebnisse mit der Einführung mechanischer Systeme nicht in dem erwarteten Maße zugenommen hat (1). Einige der oben genannten Teilschritte des Arbeitsablaufes können einer EDV-Anlage übertragen werden.…”
unclassified