全国137家临床实验室全血黏度参考区间的现况调查和分析研究

摘要

Objective To investigate the current situation of reference intervals of whole blood viscosity in 137 clinical laboratories all over China and obtain related information to promote the further harmonization of reference intervals .Methods The information of reference intervals was collected by external quality assessment software sys‐tem based on website .The participants were classified due to the instrument they used .SPSS 13 .0 were used to ana‐lyse the results of all laboratories and the reference intervals of each instrument group were statistically described due to the instrument .Results Laboratories paticipating in the ESR reference interval were 137 .The reference intervals of instructions of reagent and instrument manufactures were the highest(81 .02% ,111/137)and the following order was their own laboratory(10 .95% ,15/137) ,national Guide to Clinical Laboratory Procedures(4 .38% ,6/137) and others(3 .65% ,5/137) in turn .Only 48 .18% (66/137)of labs had verified reference intervals before useing .Most of our participant laboratories had considered different gender when establishing reference intervals .There were signifi‐cant differences between the reference intervals of different instrument groups .Conclusion Clinical laboratories should establish the reference intervals of whole blood viscosity on the basis of relevant laws or at least be able to verify the reference interval obtained by other means .Laboratories should communicate positively with clinicians and get consensus on the reference intervals of whole blood viscosity .%目的：调查全国范围内137家实验室全血黏度参考区间现状，期望得到合血黏度参考区间相关资料并为其参考区间的进一步规范化提供基础。方法采用基于 Web 方式的室间质量评价软件系统，收集参加2014年全血黏度参考区间调查室间质量评价计划的所有实验室的结果。使用 SPSS 13．0统计软件对所有实验室结果进行分析，按照仪器对各实验室进行分组并对每个仪器组的参考区间进行统计描述。结果参加 ESR 参考区间的实验室为137家。参考区间比例最高的为仪器试剂厂家说明书（81．02％，111／137），然后依次为实验室自己确定（10．95％，15／137），临床实验室操作规程（4．38％，6／137）和其他（3．65％，5／137）。仅有48．18％（66／137）的参与实验室在使用参考区间前对其进行验证。大多数参与实验室都按照性别对参考区间进行区分。全血黏度项目参考区间上下限不同仪器组比较，差异有统计学意义（P＜0．05）。结论实验室应该按照相关规定制定参考区间，或者至少能够验证由其他途径获得的参考区间。同时经常与临床沟通，以便在参考区间不适用时进行一定的修改。