Abstract
Objectives: The objective of the study was to assess the agreement between results of electrolytes (serum sodium and potassium) estimated by a wet chemistry instrument with that obtained by a dry chemistry analyzer.
Methods: It was an observational analytical cross-sectional study done in the Departmental clinical laboratory. The samples were selected randomly from the usual lab workflow. All the samples were first run on the Easylyte (wet chemistry) and then run on the Vitros 350 (dry chemistry). The paired data thus obtained were compiled and tabulated and then statistically analyzed.
Results: The agreement of the results between the two methods was evaluated using the Bland–Altman difference plot and the Passing–Bablok Regression Equation and the Deming regression studies. By analyzing the diagram of Bland–Altman, it is seen that for sodium, the average bias is of −2.22; limits of agreement being −26.12–21.77. For potassium, Bland Altman plots show a bias of −0.21; limits of agreement −0.61–0.19. Passing Bablock regression calculated an intercept of −56.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) (−100, −28) and Slope of 1.43 for sodium measurements and calculated an intercept of −0.706, 95% CI (−0.66, −0.45) and Slope of 1.2 for potassium estimation.
Conclusion: Statistical analysis revealed conflicting solutions. There is a great discrepancy between the results of the electrolyte estimation by the two methods since the methodologies are not identical.
Publisher
Innovare Academic Sciences Pvt Ltd
Reference13 articles.
1. Xi L, Hao YC, Liu J, Wang W, Wang M, Li GQ, et al. Associations between serum potassium and sodium levels and risk of hypertension: A community-based cohort study. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2015 Mar;12(2):119-26. doi: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2015.02.009, PMID 25870614.
2. Baruch HR, Hassan W, Mehta S. Eight steps to method validation in a clinical diagnostic laboratory. Am Soc Clin Lab 2018 Jan;31(1):43-7. doi: 10.29074/ascls.2018000307.
3. Westgard JO, Carey RN, Wold S. Criteria for judging precision and accuracy in method development and evaluation. Clin Chem. 1974;20(7):825-33. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/20.7.825, PMID 4835236.
4. Pant V, Tumbapo A, Karki B. Inter-instrumental comparison for the measurement of electrolytes in patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Int J Gen Med. 2017;10:145-9. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S135788, PMID 28553133.
5. Passing H, Bablok. A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, Part I. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem. 1983 Nov;21(11):709-20. doi: 10.1515/cclm.1983.21.11.709, PMID: 6655447.