论文部分内容阅读
本文根据“ＷＨＯ与ＩＣＣＩＤＤ制定的碘缺乏病防治标准与方法”中硫酸铈还原反应测定尿碘的意图，采用３种方法和３种计算公式对具体操作进行选择，并对原标准对照计算法的不合理以及计算误差对评价尿碘水平的效能进行了探讨。结果表明：（１）方法Ⅰ存在仪器误差，准确度不佳。方法Ⅱ线性关系和准确度较理想，但操作不便计算麻烦。方法Ⅲ线性关系和准确度与方法Ⅱ无差异，操作和计算简便、节约试剂。（２）原标准对照计算法不符合催化褪色反应的速率方程，产生很大计算误差，准确度很低。（３）硫酸铈法测定尿碘时，其变量间是指数曲线关系；由速率方程导出的现标准对照计算法的准确度与标准曲线计算法无统计学差异。（４）用原标准对照计算法评价的群体尿碘水平只相当于标准曲线和现标准对照计算法的６４．１％和６３．４％。在３１２５例群体样品中，缺碘总人数被原计算方法的误差提高了１５．８％。
Based on the intent of urinary iodine determination by cerium sulfate reduction in “WHO and ICCIDD Standard and Method for Prevention and Treatment of Iodine Deficiency Disorders”, three kinds of methods and three kinds of calculation formulas are used to select the specific operation, and the original standard comparison calculation method Irrational and computational errors on the evaluation of the efficacy of urinary iodine levels were discussed. The results show that: (1) There is some error in method Ⅰ, and the accuracy is poor. Method Ⅱ linear relationship and accuracy is better, but inconvenient to calculate the trouble. Method Ⅲ linear relationship and accuracy and method Ⅱ no difference, the operation and calculation is simple, saving reagents. (2) The original standard comparison calculation method does not meet the rate equation of catalytic fading reaction, resulting in a large calculation error with a very low accuracy. (3) When the cerium sulfate method is used to determine urinary iodine, the relationship between the variables is exponential curve; the accuracy of the standard comparison calculation method derived from the rate equation has no significant difference with the standard curve calculation method. (4) The urinary iodine level of the population evaluated by the original standard comparison calculation method only corresponded to 64.1% and 63.4% of the standard curve and the standard comparison calculation method. In the 3125 group samples, the total number of iodine deficiency was 15.8% higher than the original calculation error.