Serum vitamin A and E analysis: comparison of methods between laboratories enrolled in an external quality assurance programme

This version was published on 1 January 2010

Ann Clin Biochem 2010;47:78-80
doi:10.1258/acb.2009.009116
© 2010 Association for Clinical Biochemistry

 

This Article
Right arrow
Figures Only
Right arrow
Full Text
Right arrow

Full Text (PDF)

Right arrow
All Versions of this Article:

acb.2009.009116v1

47/1/78

most recent

Right arrow
Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow
Email this article to a friend
Right arrow

Similar articles in this journal

Right arrow
Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow
Download to citation manager
Right arrow
Google Scholar
Right arrow
Articles by Greaves, R.
Right arrow
Articles by Hoad, K.
PubMed
Right arrow
PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking

What’s this?

Short Reports


Ronda Greaves1,
Lisa Jolly2,
Gerald Woollard3 and
Kirsten Hoad4


1 Department of Complex Biochemistry, The Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne;
2 RCPA Chemical Pathology QAP, Adelaide, Australia;
3 Department of Chemical Pathology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand;
4 Core Clinical Pathology and Biochemistry, Pathwest Laboratory Medicine WA, Royal Perth Hospital, Western Australia, Australia, On behalf of the AACB–Vitamins Working Party


Corresponding author: Dr Ronda Greaves, Department of Complex Biochemistry, The Royal Children’s Hospital, Flemington Rd, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia. Email: ronda.greaves{at}rch.org.au


Aim: To survey laboratories enrolled in the Royal College of Pathologistsof Australasia (RCPA) Chemical Pathology Quality Assurance Programme(QAP) for vitamin A and E testing to determine differences betweenmethods of analysis.

Methods: A detailed questionnaire covering the major aspects of serumvitamin A and E analysis was sent to all participating laboratoriesin 2007.

Results: Thirteen out of the 22 laboratories completed the questionnaire.Methods between laboratories showed a great deal of commonality.All respondents performed a liquid extraction step, which includedthe addition of an internal standard, followed by high-performanceliquid chromatography (C18 columns with predominantly methanol-basedmobile phases) with spectrophotometric detection. Major inter-laboratorydifferences were whether the sample was protected from light,the extraction solvents and ratios used, the drying down temperatureused post-liquid extraction and choice of calibrator.

Conclusions: The questionnaire highlighted discrete methodological differencesbetween laboratories. These findings provide direction to enablethe Vitamins Working Party of the Australasian Association ofClinical Biochemists to further investigate the dispersion inresults between participants of the RCPA QAP vitamin programme.


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What’s this?