干化学和湿化学方法测定尿蛋白结果的比较

目的探讨干化学与湿化学不同方法测定尿蛋白（UPRO）的差异。方法选用强生干化学仪器的干化学法和日立7170A仪器连苯三酚红显色湿化学法测定尿蛋白，同时检测53份标本，进行相关性比较，结果采用t检验、相对偏差、回归分析．进行统计分析。结果湿化学结果与干化学结果相比明显偏低：低值、中值和高值分别偏低22．8％、39．7％和26．2％。t值分别为3．452、6．352、6．956，P〈0．01，差别有极显著意义。其回归曲线：y=0．7936x-64．224，对b（总体斜率）与a（总体截距）的检验，tb=5．397、8．502、5．741、5．520，ta=2．502、1．944、1．259、0．818；两种方法学测定UPRO结果的系统误差属临床不可接受水平。结论两种方法的测试结果有显著性差异，有条件的实验室应使用千化学方法定量检测尿蛋白。

Comparison of the Results of Urine Protein Determination by Dry Chemical and Wet Chemical Methods

Objective To discuss the difference of urine protein （UPRO） determination by different methods of dry chemistry and wet chemistry. Methods Johnson chemical apparatus＇s desiccation research method and Hitachi 7170A instrument trihydroxybenzene red coloration wet chemical process were selected to determine urine protein, simultaneously examining 53 specimens to carry on the relevant comparison. The results were statistically analyzed by T-test, relative deviation and regression analysis. Results Wet chemical determination result was significantly lower than dry chemical one： low-value, median-value and high-value were lower 22.8%, 39.7% and 26.2% respectively, T-values were 3.452, 6.352, 6.956, with highly significant difference （P〈0.01）. The regression curve： y=0.7936：r-64.224, on the b （overall slope） and a （overall intercept） of the test, tb=5.397, 8.502, 5.741, 5.520, ta=2.502, 1.944, 1.259, 0.818; systematic error of determination of UPRO by two kinds of chemical methods was clinically unacceptable. Conclusions Determination results of two methods have significant difference, which laboratory with good conditions should use dry chemical method to determine urine protein.