论文部分内容阅读
目的了解溶血空斑分析仪计数溶血空斑的准确性。方法昆明种小鼠经口连续分别给予低、中、高剂量的3个样品(鳄鱼酒、益生菌冲剂及洋参胶囊),另设空白对照组及酒基对照组,30 d后进行溶血空斑试验(PFC),分别用仪器法和人工计数法对溶血空斑进行计数,并比较两种方法的计数结果;另选取高、中、低3份溶血空斑数值不同的标本,分别用两种方法进行计数,每份标本重复计数10次,比较CV值。结果用仪器法和人工计数法所得结果之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);且相关系数分别为0.986、0.988和0.982,两种方法计得的溶血空斑数呈正相关。用仪器法和人工计数法对3份溶血空斑数值不同的标本重复计数的CV值分别为1.12%、1.31%、1.59%和3.46%、3.44%、3.05%,显示仪器法的精密度高于人工计数法。结论用溶血空斑分析仪计数溶血空斑是一种客观、准确的方法,并可取代人工计数法。
Objective To understand the accuracy of hemolysis plaque analyzer for counting hemolytic plaque. Methods Kunming mice were orally administered with low, medium and high doses of three samples (crocodile wine, probiotics granules and foreign ginseng capsules), another blank control group and alcohol-based control group, 30 days after hemolysis Plaque test (PFC), instrumental method and manual counting method to count the hemolytic plaque, and compare the counting results of the two methods; the other high, medium and low hemolytic plaque selected three different values of specimens, respectively, with two Methods of counting, each specimen repeat count 10 times, compare the CV value. Results There was no significant difference between the results obtained by instrumental method and artificial counting method (P> 0.05). The correlation coefficients were 0.986, 0.988 and 0.982, respectively. The number of hemolytic plaques measured by the two methods was positively correlated. The CV values of repeated counting of three samples with different hemolytic plaques were 1.12%, 1.31%, 1.59% and 3.46%, 3.44% and 3.05% respectively by instrumental method and manual counting method, which showed that the precision of instrument method was higher than Manual counting method. Conclusion Hemolysis plaque analyzer to count hemolysis plaque is an objective and accurate method, and can replace the manual counting method.