Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: not found

Performance of the CardioChek PA and Cholestech LDX point-of-care analysers compared to clinical diagnostic laboratory methods for the measurement of lipids.

Brain research. Brain research reviews

Biological Markers, blood, Clinical Laboratory Techniques, Hematologic Tests, methods, Humans, Hyperlipoproteinemia Type II, Lipids, Point-of-Care Systems, Sensitivity and Specificity

Read this article at

ScienceOpenPubMed
Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      Point-of-care (POC) blood testing is intended to provide results more rapidly than can be obtained from a central laboratory. Precision and accuracy of the CardioChek PA and Cholestech LDX analysers were compared to clinical diagnostic laboratory methods. In 100 patients, total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels were measured by both analysers and compared to those analysed by the National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS) laboratory. Data were evaluated for conformance with National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines. Results were grouped into low, middle and high ranges and were similar to those obtained by the NHLS, except in the high range where TC and LDL-C levels were under-read by both analysers. All analytes measured by both analysers correlated significantly with NHLS (p < 0.0001). With the exception of LDL-C, both analysers showed reasonable compliance with NCEP goals for coefficients of variation and bias measurements. Both analysers met NCEP guidelines for all analytes at two clinical cut-off points. We concluded that, compared to NHLS methods, performance of the CardioChek PA and Cholestech LDX analysers is acceptable and that they offer healthcare professionals a rapid, POC method for the measurement of lipids.

      Related collections

      Author and article information

      Journal
      15915279

      Comments

      Comment on this article